Preamble

The House met at Half past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PETITION

DISCHARGED DETECTIVE, BURGHFIELD DEPOT

Mr. Anthony Hurd: I desire to present a humble Petition signed by 2,100 residents of the Newbury division of Berkshire and elsewhere concerning John William Chesterman of Little Lakes. Grazely, Berkshire. After 26 years' service in the London Metropolitan Police he was, until December, 1947, employed by the Ministry of Supply at the depot at Burghfield, Berkshire, as a plain clothes detective.
The Petition shows that in the discharge of his duties John William Chesterman made reports to the authorities alleging dishonesty on the part of senior officials at the Ministry's depot, particularly in the months of October and November, 1947. Almost immediately afterwards John William Chesterman's employment as a plain clothes detective was declared redundant. He declined to accept alternative employment by the Ministry at Burghfield, and he was discharged from the service of the Ministry of Supply having been denied a hearing which he requested as a member of a trade union. John William Chesterman has since been unable to obtain other employment.
The Petition ends with the prayer:
Wherefore your Petitioners pray that a public inquiry should be held into matters alleged to reflect on public administration at the Burghfield depot and the circumstances in which John William Chesterman was dismissed from his employment with the Ministry of Supply in December, 1947.
And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

To lie upon the Table.

Oral Answers to Questions — BECHUANALAND (TRIBAL DISPUTE)

Mr. T. Driberg: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations if he will now make a statement on the policy of His Majesty's Government with regard to the chieftainship of the Bamangwato and the return to their own land of Seretse Khama and his wife and Tshekedi Khama.

Mr. W. T. Aitken: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations if he can now state what are the Government's intentions regarding the request of Tshekedi Khama for permission to return to the Bamangwato Reserve.

The Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations (Mr. John Foster): His Majesty's Government have decided that Tshekedi Khama's private rights in the Bamangwato Reserve should not be restricted for longer than is necessary in the public interest. He has already renounced the Chieftainship; and His Majesty's Government are convinced that the interests of peace in the Reserve demand that he should be excluded from the political life of the tribe. The sooner this exclusion is shown to be effective, and it is His Majesty's Government's intention to make it so, the sooner will it be possible to allow him progressively greater freedom to look after his private interests in the Reserve and ultimately, if all goes well, to let him live there as a private person.
As regards Seretse Khama, the Government intend to adhere to the policy of their predecessors as set forth in the White Paper on the Bechuanaland Protectorate which was presented in March, 1950.

Mr. Driberg: While welcoming the hopes held out to Tshekedi Khama in that answer, may I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman how the interests of peace and justice in the tribe can be served by continuing injustice to Seretse Khama, injustice based essentially on a concession to racial prejudice?

Mr. Foster: I do not accept the underlying assumption in the supplementary question of the hon. Gentleman. The


position of Mr. Seretse Khama is very different. It was his own action in following his private inclinations without regard to his public obligations that led to all these difficulties. However, the decision of His Majesty's Government does not preclude revision before the five years have expired.

Mr. Aitken: Will the Under-Secretary of State give an assurance that, although excluded from Bamangwato politics, in view of this man's undoubted ability and high integrity he will be given an opportunity of real service in other directions?

Mr. Foster: Certainly, Sir. His Majesty's Government would like to take advantage of the very outstanding abilities of Mr. Tshekedi Khama.

Mr. Clement Davies: May I ask what is the full meaning of the answer in reference to Tshekedi Khama? Is it the desire and intent of H.M. Government that Tshekedi Khama should return home and dwell freely amongst his own people as a private person and as a farmer; secondly, until that happens, is he to be allowed to go to the area of the Bamangwato tribe and move freely among the people there; and, thirdly, during that time, and at all times, will he have the full protection of H.M. Government?

Mr. Foster: Yes, Sir. The answer to all three parts of the Question is "Yes," providing that time is allowed for the tribe to realise that Tshekedi Khama is not going to enter into political life. In other words, there are two parts to the policy. One is that the tribe should be sure that Tshekedi Khama is not going to take any part, directly or indirectly, in the native administration in the Reserve, and, on the other hand, H.M. Government are very anxious that Tshekedi Khama should go back and live in the Reserve if he shows that co-operation.

Mr. Thomas Reid: May I ask the Minister if he anticipates that there can be any real peace in this tribe unless Seretse Khama is appointed Chief?

Mr. Foster: Yes, Sir; H.M. Government do anticipate that.

Mr. A. Fenner Brockway: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the tribes have declared their very strong opposition to the return of Tshekedi Khama unless Seretse also returns, and that Seretse has

indicated that, if he is recognised as Chief, he will do his best to enable Tshekedi Khama to return as well?

Mr. Foster: The policy of the Government, as I have said, is to ensure the return of Tshekedi Khama as soon as possible, provided that he co-operates, as the Government feel sure he will, in not taking any part in political life. On the other hand, the Government feel that, when the tribe realise this, they will withdraw their opposition to Tshekedi Khama going back to the Reserve.

Mr. Brockway: On a point of order. I should like to call attention to a definite matter of urgent public importance—

Mr. Speaker: That has to be done after Questions.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE

Monopoly Commission Investigations (Evidence)

Mr. William Shepherd: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will take steps to ensure that trades or firms appearing before the Monopoly Commission are given copies of all evidence which could be held to reflect upon their trade or industry.

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Peter Thorneycroft): I attach great importance to firms and trade bodies being aware of all the matters relevant to the Commission's consideration of their activities. I know the Commission are fully seized of the importance of this, and that they give ample opportunities to firms or trade bodies to correct any mistakes of fact and defend any activities whose effects on the public interest may be under consideration. I do not think any steps on my part are needed.

Mr. Shepherd: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the industries already investigated do not feel that they had, and, in fact, have not had, an opportunity of hearing the evidence against them, and, in the interests of justice, is it not important that they should be so enabled?

Mr. Thorneycroft: Representations of that character have not been brought to me. My impression is that everyone concerned is impressed by the fair and impartial way in which this particular tribunal has conducted its affairs.

"Trade Link" Bulletin (Cost)

Mr. Richard Thompson: asked the President of the Board of Trade the cost to the taxpayer of the bi-monthly bulletin. "Trade Link."

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: £213 per issue.

Mr. Thompson: May I ask my right hon. Friend if he is of opinion that even this modest sum is justified when it involves the distribution of a largely useless publication to a number of manufacturers who can make no use of it?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I think that this publication does, in fact, serve a useful purpose, but the whole of our overseas information expenditure is, of course, under review.

Import Restrictions,

Mrs. Barbara Castle: asked the President of the Board of Trade what steps have been taken by European countries affected by our new import restrictions to reduce their imports from this country.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: None, Sir.

Mrs. Castle: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some of our best customers in Europe have been badly hit by these new import restrictions, which have increased their own balance of payments difficulties, and will he keep the House appraised of any retaliatory measures which these countries feel obliged to take?

Mr. Thorneycroft: These import cuts were, of course, necessitated by our balance of payments difficulties, but, up to the present, there has been no case of retaliation on the part of our friends on the Continent of Europe.

Raw Cotton Imports (Meeting)

Mr. Leslie Hale: asked the President of the Board of Trade why no representatives of the textile workers' unions were invited to his recent discussion with regard to the future of the Liverpool cotton imports.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I would refer the hon. Member to the answers given to the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Boardman) on 27th November and to the hon. Member for East Dumbartonshire (Mr. Bence) on 29th November.

Mr. Hale: As those answers did not contain any information, will the right hon. Gentleman now tell the House whether it is a matter of Government policy that, when they talk about consulting the trade unions or the T.U.C., they first consult the employers and come to their conclusions and then tell the trade unions what they have decided?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I have had consultations on this matter with the Cotton Board, on which, of course, the trade unions are represented. At that time, it was suggested that it might be useful in any inquiry which should be set up that the unions should, in addition, be separately represented. I had further consultations, I hope of a mutually profitable character, with the unions on the matter.

Mr. Hale: In any event, will the right hon. Gentleman undertake in future to consult with the trade unions first, and not consult them second?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I do not think there are any complaints on either side about my handling of this matter.

Development Areas

Mr. Frederick Peart: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he can yet say what change is to be made in the policy of priorities for the Development Areas.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I am anxious that the Development Areas should make their maximum contribution to the urgent needs of production for defence and exports, and we shall continue existing arrangements whenever they will assist the Areas to attain this objective.

Mr. Peart: Do I take it that the recent announcement of a standstill on new building will not affect new factory buildings in the Development Areas, and also that new factories will get adequate supplies of materials, as they did when the previous Government were in office?

Mr. Thorneycroft: The priorities will be used in the context of the policy which I have just enunciated, namely, the furtherance of the defence programme and exports.

Mr. Peart: Do I take it that factory building will not be cut, but will continue, as it did under the last Government?

Mr. Thorneycroft: Every case will, of course, be considered upon its merits, and factory building which is calculated to improve the export position of the country will be furthered. So far as I am concerned, if defence contracts can be steered in the direction of the Development Areas, I shall certainly do my best to see that that is done.

Mr. A. Woodburn: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, during the period of the last Government, we were unsuccessful in getting private enterprise to take advantage of the facilities offered by his Department in the Development Area of the Highlands, and that, as this is not a place where labour can be diverted to anything else, will he do his best to see that private enterprise does make use of these facilities?

Mr. Frederick Lee: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will be careful when he speaks of trying to steer rearmament contracts into the Development Areas, because if he concentrates upon that, when the rearmament work is finished, it may well be that there will be no work for these people in the Development Areas?

Mr. Thorneycroft: What I said was that
I will endeavour, as far as possible, to steer the defence contracts in the direction of the Development Areas.

Welsh Products (Marking)

Mr. Peter Freeman: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that goods manufactured in Wales are frequently described on the articles themselves as being manufactured in England; and whether he will take steps to secure a correct description as to the place of origin on all articles made in Wales.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: It is for the courts to decide in any particular case whether this practice infringes the Merchandise Marks Act, 1887, and it is open to any person to test the matter in the courts. I am advised that it is not practicable for me to take any action.

Mr. Freeman: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will consult with his right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary in order to consider what steps can be taken to remove this anachronism and slander which is occurring in his own constituency?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I am informed that it is open to the hon. Gentleman himself to test this matter in the courts.

Mr. Freeman: Is it not also open to the right hon. Gentleman himself?

Departmental Staff

Lieut.-Colonel Marcus Lipton: asked the President of the Board of Trade to what extent the number of persons employed in his Department has been increased since 1st November last.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: Twenty-six, Sir.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why, at a time when all kinds of cuts have been imposed, the staff in his Department has been increasing?

Mr. Thorneycroft: Some of the cuts imposed were import cuts requiring a certain amount of staff to deal with them. I am considering this matter. It is, on the whole, rather a modest figure, and I hope that before long it will be reduced to a figure at least no higher than that at which I started.

Cotton Import Committee (Members)

Mr. F. J. Erroll: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will announce the names, individual qualifications, composition and terms of reference of the Committee which he is setting up under the chairmanship of Sir Richard Hopkins for the purpose of working out the best practicable scheme for the importation of raw cotton, together with the date of their first meeting and the expected date of their final meeting.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: The terms of reference of the Cotton Import Committee which the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and I are setting up under the Chairmanship of Sir Richard Hopkins are:
To consider and report to the President of the Board of Trade and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on the question how in the current foreign exchange position cotton can best be supplied to the United Kingdom cotton industry on the most advantageous terms as to quality and price.
With my hon. Friend's permission, I will circulate the list of members in the OFFICIAL REPORT. The Committee will


be holding its first meeting in Liverpool tomorrow. I cannot say when the Committee will complete its work.

Mr. Erroll: Can my right hon. Friend say whether this statement implies any change in the Government's policy as enunciated by the Prime Minister at Liverpool recently regarding the future of the Liverpool Cotton Exchange?

Mr. Thorneycroft: No, Sir. The Government's policy remains as stated by my right hon. Friend in his speech on 2nd October.

Mr. H. A. Marquand: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether the trade unions have accepted his invitation to serve on this Committee with those terms of reference?

Mr. Thorneycroft: Yes, Sir, they have accepted on those terms of reference.

Following are the members:

Sir Richard Hopkins. G.C.B. (Chairman).
Richard Brooks, Esq.
H. S. Butterworth, Esq.
E. W. Cockcroft, Esq.
G. Hasty, Esq., J.P.
W. B. Hutchinson, Esq.
Sir Ralph Lacey.
J. D. Little, Esq. (Jnr.).
A. Naesmith, Esq., C.B.E., J.P.
A. Roberts. Esq., C.B.E., J.P.
C. Schofield, Esq., O.B.E., J.P.
Sir E. Raymond Streat, C.B.E.
A. V. Symons, Esq.
W. T. Winterbottom, Esq., C.B.E.

Utility Clothing

Mrs. Castle: asked the President of the Board of Trade what steps he is taking to maintain the supply of tax-free utility clothing.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I understand that there is no shortage of utility clothing at present, and no special action seems necessary to maintain supplies.

Mrs. Castle: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the utility scheme has been the housewife's best safeguard against excessive prices at a time of rising costs, and will he give the House a firm assurance that the rumour which is going round that the Government intend to tamper with this scheme is false, and that he will, in fact, maintain it?

Mr. Thorneycroft: The hon. Lady should not pay too much attention to these rumours.

War Damage Claimants

Sir Jocelyn Lucas: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will pay forthwith the agreed sum due in a case of war damage, of which he has been given the particulars in view of the urgent need and the long delay in payment.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: The claimants to whom I understand my hon. Friend refers, made no application for early payment until 19th November this year. Any delay that has occurred since then is due to the failure of the applicants to supply the information asked for. This information has since been obtained, and I have given instructions that the claim should be paid with accrued interest.

Sir J. Lucas: Thank you very much indeed.

Edible Gelatine (Imports)

Mr. Arthur Pearson: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will consider restricting the importation of edible gelatine into the United Kingdom to the global maximum value of £5,000 per month, in view of the adequate home production of this product and the declared need of keeping down unnecessary imports to the lowest level.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: No, Sir. The measures of import restrictions recently announced were made necessary by our balance of payments position. I do not intend to extend them further.

Mr. Pearson: In view of the fact that restrictions are taking place, would it not be a sensible thing to restrict commodities, such as those mentioned in this Question, while home production is adequate?

Mr. Thorneycroft: These import cuts were imposed not for protective purposes, but in order to assist our balance of payments position. This particular commodity happens to be on the common list on which all countries in Europe seek, if they can, to avoid imposing quantitative restrictions.

Cleanliness Campaign (Cost)

Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton: asked the President of the Board of Trade what was the cost for last year of the cleanliness campaign of the British Tourist and Holiday Association.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I am informed by the British Travel and Holidays Association that they have not incurred any expenditure on the, campaign for cleanliness in catering establishments, apart from expenditure on the storage and distribution of publicity material. This has been ordered by the British Tourist and Holidays Board, which was merged with the Travel Association in April, 1950. For the year ended 30th November, the latest convenient date, the Association inform me that the net expenditure incurred on storage and distribution was approximately £67.

Paper Supplies (Unsolicited Advertisements)

. Sir Richard Acland: asked the Secretary for Overseas Trade, as representing the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, whether, to save dollar expenditure on paper, he will introduce legislation to prevent commercial undertakings from distributing unsolicited advertising matter to householders.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Henry Strauss): I have been asked to reply. No, Sir. In the absence of comprehensive control over the distribution of paper, a prohibition of unsolicited advertising matter would have a negligible effect on our total import requirements.

Sir R. Acland: Would the Minister look at this and see whether in our present position of shortage, both of paper and purchasing power, it is sensible for a firm to send unsolicited this kind of thing to citizens and very likely get it paid for by striking off the cost against their Income Tax?

Mr. Strauss: I shall, of course, look at whatever the hon. Baronet sends me, but I would remind him that with the high cost of paper and certain existing legal restrictions the prohibition which he suggests might, in the absence of a full control, result in diversion which would be useless, and that full control, if it were adopted, would involve the use of staff and office accommodation which would certainly not be justified.

Sir R. Acland: Could not the hon. and learned Gentleman and his party, with all the influence they have with private trade, let it be known among private

traders that this sort of thing is indecent at a time when the country has not sufficient resources to meet legitimate needs?

Oral Answers to Questions — DRIVING OFFENCES (DRUNKENNESS)

Mr. Norman Dodds: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prosecutions have been made since 1st January, 1950, up to the last convenient date for driving offences whilst under the influence of drink; and in how many cases were sentences of imprisonment enforced.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir David Maxwell Fyfe): I will, with permission, circulate the figures in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Dodds: In view of the figures which have recently been given, does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman think it makes a mockery of the law and of those who are striving to reduce the dreadful toll of the roads that not more imprisonment sentences are imposed for these offences?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: There is another Question dealing with this subject which, I hope, I shall answer in a short time.

Following are the figures:


NUMBER OF OFFENCES DISPOSED OF


—
Magistrates' Courts
Higher Courts


1950
First six months of 1951
1950


Prosecutions
2,556
1,335
180


Convictions
2,261
1,288
95


Sentences of imprisonment
87
90
5

No figures for the higher courts are yet available for the first six months of 1951.

Mr. Dodds: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware of the widespread concern at the leniency shown in cases of driving offences whilst under the influence of drink, and the need for more drastic sentences to deal with this type of offence.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave on 15th November to the hon. Member for Abertillery (Rev. Ll. Williams).

Mr. Dodds: Is not the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that most people think that driving under the influence of drink is one of the worst offences, and does not he think there is an urgent need for more sentences of imprisonment instead of these small fines?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: In the answer to which I referred I said these words, if the House will forgive me repeating them:
The Lord Chief Justice, in a recent case before the Divisional Court, took the opportunity of calling the attention of magistrates to the fact that driving under the influence of drink was one of the worst offences which it was possible to commit."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th November, 1951; Vol. 493, c. 67.]
Those are the words which the hon. Gentleman himself used just now, and I have no doubt that courts will pay a proper attention to this advice. But I must say, as I have said in other matters, that I have no powers to direct courts, nor will I be a party to the Executive influencing courts who must deal with each case according to the facts.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Dodds.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: On a point of order. Is the House to understand, Mr. Speaker, that in the exercise of your judgment you are not permitting any supplementary questions except from the hon. Member who puts down the Question?

Mr. Speaker: I am afraid it is an absolute discretion which I try to exercise as fairly as I can.

Mr. Nicholson: I am not for one second questioning your right of discretion, Mr. Speaker, but I notice that today you have only been calling for supplementaries from those who asked the Questions, which rather excludes other hon. Members from seeking information.

Mr. Speaker: I am not bound to give any reason for what I do, but I would say to hon. Members that on this difficult matter I think the hon. Member who takes the trouble to put down a Question is entitled, if he can, to get an answer from the Minister and to get in a supplementary question. Every supplementary question asked by a Member who has not put his name to a Question does postpone the right of other hon. Members to get an answer to their Questions.

Oral Answers to Questions — DRUGGED CIGARETTES (TRAFFICKING)

Mr. Dodds: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware of the concern at the increasing practice of trafficking in drugged cigarettes containing hashish or marihuana; and what steps are being taken to deal with this problem.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: Yes, Sir. My Department, in co-operation with the police and H.M. Customs, will continue to exercise the utmost vigilance in order to secure the enforcement of the law relating to dangerous drugs. I am glad to be able to inform the House that drug addiction does not present a serious problem in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Dodds: Because of the rapidly developing craze by young people for doped cigarettes—[HON. MEMBERS: "No"]—will the Home Secretary do everything in his power to stamp out that racket which can send the victims to the madhouse?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: As I indicated in the last words of my answer, I have no reason to suppose that what the hon. Gentleman says represents the position in this country. If he will bring any special case to my attention, I shall be glad to consider it.

Oral Answers to Questions — PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS

Postal Votes

Mr. E. H. Keeling: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that, although the right to vote by post is not restricted to persons in the United Kingdom, an applicant for this right has to name an address in the United Kingdom to which a ballot paper is to be sent; and whether, to save the delay entailed by redirection from such address to a place of residence abroad, he will propose that the law shall be altered.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I doubt whether any general scheme for voting by post from abroad would be practicable. Certain classes of absent voters who may be abroad at the time of an election are, however, entitled to vote by proxy. The question whether this right should be


extended, or any other changes made, will be considered if an opportunity arises for amending legislation.

Mr. Keeling: I am much obliged.

Mr. Keeling: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that the form of application to vote by post owing to change of residence implies without statutory authority that the new address of residence is in the United Kingdom; and whether he will alter the form.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: The form will be altered at the next printing.

Motor Vehicles

Mr. Rupert Speir: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will introduce legislation to increase the number of motor vehicles permitted to carry voters to the polls at elections, in view of the great hardship imposed on electors in rural areas through the present limitations on the number of permitted vehicles.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I cannot promise legislation on this subject at present.

Mr. Speir: Does the Home Secretary realise that in a widespread division, such as Hexham, many of the electors are more than five miles from the nearest polling station and with the present limitation we have less than one-third of a motorcar for each polling district? Is it not most undesirable that any obstacle should be put in the way of electors casting their votes?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I realise there is a problem. I do not rule out the possibility of legislation; but I say the subject is not one for immediate action, and clearly the usual consultations must take place before we deal with matters, such as this, which are the subject of legislation.

Polling Booths, Cardiff

Mr. George Thomas: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware of the inconvenience caused to electors in Cardiff by the refusal of the Cardiff City Corporation to grant adequate polling booths in the recent General Election; and whether he will hold an inquiry into the action of the corporation.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I have no power to take the action suggested by the hon. Member. If, however, 30 or more electors in the constituency concerned submit a representation to me in pursuance of Section 11 of the Representation of the People Act, 1949, I shall of course give consideration to it.

Representation of the People Act

Mr. Hale: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will revise the rules made under the Representation of the People Act so as more adequately to ensure that persons who are not absent voters and who have made no claim to be treated as such are not deprived of their right to vote in a mistaken belief that they had received the facilities of absent voters.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: No, Sir. I do not think that any alteration of the rules could prevent mistakes.

Prisoners

Mr. Keeling: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department in what cases a prisoner is allowed to make application to be regarded as a postal voter; and whether he will ask Parliament to alter the law which allows him to vote when the prison is in a different borough, urban district or rural parish from his home, but not when it is in the same borough, urban district or rural parish.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: All persons detained in prison or in a Borstal institution who are entitled to vote are allowed to apply to be treated as absent voters. It is for the registration officer to decide whether the application should be allowed. The question of prisoners voting will be reviewed when an opportunity for amending legislation occurs.

Mr. Keeling: Unless the prison authorities are going to send to the polling station accompanied by a warder a man who is eligible to vote and goes to prison in his own borough, does not the Home Secretary agree that it is quite ridiculous that one person should be enfranchised and another disenfranchised just according to where they live?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I will see that that point is considered.

Mr. William Hamilton: Could we be informed whether these people were influenced electorally by the Tory Party slogan. "Set the people free"?

Oral Answers to Questions — WALES

Council for Wales (Publication of Proceedings)

Mr. Raymond Gower: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will now arrange for the proceedings of the Council for Wales to be published and accessible to the Press as are the proceedings of this House.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: This is a matter for the Council to decide.

Mr. Gower: Does the Home Secretary realise that when the Council was originally set up there was a directive from the Government? Could not a similar directive be given now in view of the fact that bodies of this kind seldom flourish in conditions of permanent secrecy?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I feel that they flourish better if they manage their own affairs. I should like to see that tried first.

Minister for Welsh Affairs (Staff)

Mr. G. Thomas: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department the number of persons allocated by his Department to deal solely with Welsh affairs; and what is their status and salary.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: As my functions as Minister for Welsh Affairs are not executive, I do not think I shall need, at present at any rate, a large staff specially appointed for the purpose. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, who will have a principal, on a salary of £950-£1,375 per annum as his personal assistant exclusively for Welsh business, will be Chairman of the conference of Heads of Government Offices in Wales, and, as a result of this and other arrangements which have been made, both he and I will be able to call on the experience of senior officials throughout the Government service with special knowledge of Welsh affairs.

Mr. Thomas: Do I understand from the Minister that, in short, one person will be the total increase of staff to give full time to Welsh problems?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I hope the hon. Gentleman will not understand that.

Capital City

Mr. G. Thomas: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will now give recognition to Cardiff as the capital city of Wales.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I have no power to recognise Cardiff, or indeed any other place, as the capital of Wales.

Mr. Thomas: Am I to understand that the Minister has consulted with the Under-Secretary for Welsh Affairs? Is he further aware that there is an overriding desire throughout Wales—[HON. MEMBERS: "No"]—is he further aware there is an overriding desire in the enlightened parts of Wales, that Cardiff should be recognised?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: If the hon. Member can secure general agreement throughout Wales as to the place which should be its capital, he does not need any puny words of mine.

Mr. Roderic Bowen: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that he has a far more important problem to exercise his mind in relation to Wales than this Question? Will he agree that, if at any time any question of recognition should arise, at least one place, Aberystwyth, has superior claim?

Oral Answers to Questions — OBSCENE PUBLICATIONS (PROSECUTIONS)

Mr. G. H. Oliver: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many successful prosecutions have been instituted against publishers of obscene publications during the past 12 months.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: Nineteen, Sir.

Mr. Oliver: In view of that rather peculiar and indeed extraordinary reply, can the right hon. and learned Gentleman say what is the reluctance to institute proceedings against publishers of this stuff, having regard to the fact that they must read it before they publish it, while at the same time the retail newsagents


and booksellers are being prosecuted almost weekly when they cannot possibly read the contents of all the stuff they sell?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: The question of prosecution is a matter for the police, and the police will take proceedings in the cases they think right.

Mr. Oliver: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman satisfied that the retailers are being treated fairly and the publishers not let off very lightly? Will he not make inquiries into this matter?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I am very willing to make inquiries but not willing to assume some one else's functions.

Brigadier O. L. Prior-Palmer: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware of the increase in the number of stalls selling this type of literature after a certain hour in the evening in London.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I hope my hon. and gallant Friend will give me the information.

Sir Hartley Shawcross: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman give the figures as to the number of prosecutions of retailers for sales of obscene literature?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: That is another question, but I will make inquiries.

Oral Answers to Questions — FIRE SERVICE

Trade Union Consultation

Mr. Reader Harris: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will bring into consultation at the appropriate time the two organisations representing the officers and men of the Fire Service when making plans for the nationalisation of the Fire Service in the event of war.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I will consider this at the right time, but I do not contemplate that it will be necessary to consult these organisations on any matters except conditions of service. A considerable part of the plans must of course be treated as secret.

Auxiliary Personnel (Sick Pay Scheme)

Mr. R. Harris: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware that industrial injury benefits

provide inadequate compensation for members of the Auxiliary Fire Service injured while undergoing training; and if he will introduce legislation to provide an adequate pension in such circumstances.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I understand that my hon. Friend is mainly concerned with a sick pay scheme to deal with temporary loss of earnings in the normal occupation. I have received representations on this subject which I am considering in consultation with those of my colleagues who are also concerned.

Mr. Harris: Would the Home Secretary bear in mind that there is at the moment an Auxiliary fireman who in a civil job was earning about £9 a week and is now reduced to about £3 a week industrial injury pay? If my right hon. and learned Friend is able to do anything, will he make it as retrospective as possible?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: Certainly, I will take what my hon. Friend says into account.

Fire Service College

Mr. H. Hynd: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has now reviewed the expenditure on the Fire Service College; and if he will make a statement.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: Yes, Sir. The College has settled down in its new premises at Wotton, and I hope that next year its value will be increased by the provision of courses in emergency fire fighting for senior officers as part of the plans for the re-establishment of the National Fire Service in the event of war. As a result of a reduction of expenditure and an increase of the number of students, the College is now running at a cost per student week which is about half the corresponding cost in 1948.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL DEFENCE (MOBILE COLUMNS)

Mr. Ian Harvey: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will now make a statement with regard to the progress achieved so far in the formation of Civil Defence mobile columns.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: A start has now been made with the formation of an experimental mobile column. The commandant has been appointed. Negotiations for the acquisition of a suitable site, at Epsom, are practically complete. I am not yet in a position to make any statement about the manning of the column.

Mr. Harvey: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that this has been going on for a long time, and that until this mobile column is formed it will be quite impossible to develop this highly important aspect of Civil Defence? Could he bring some acceleration to bear upon the proceedings?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I am getting on with the matter as quickly as I possibly can.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHILD (VISIT TO U.S.A.)

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the further police inquiries into the circumstances of Thomas Kavanagh's journey to the United States of America have been concluded; and whether he will make a statement.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I am informed that the police inquiries have not yet been completed.

Oral Answers to Questions — BASTARDY ORDERS (PAYMENTS)

Mr. Barnett Janner: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will introduce legislation to bring bastardy orders into line with married women's orders and guardianship orders in respect of the maximum payable for a child and continued payments beyond the age of 16 years.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: My hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, North (Mr. Crouch), introduced a Private Members' Bill on this topic yesterday.

Mr. Janner: In view of the fact that this must have been considered at the time the increases were allowed in relation to guardianship orders, would the right hon. and learned Gentleman say that if that Bill is not reached he will introduce a Bill and if it is reached the Government will support it?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: We will certainly give our help to see that this matter is put right in the sense the hon. Member wants.

Mr. Janner: I am very much obliged.

Oral Answers to Questions — POLICE

Widows' Pensions

Mr. Maurice Edelman: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that, under the Police Pension Regulation, certain classes of police widows receive only 26s. a week, 4s. a week less than the amount that widows in similar circumstances would receive were they beneficiaries under the National Insurance Scheme; and what action he is taking in order to end this anomaly.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: This point is covered by the Police Pensions Regulations, 1951, which were approved by Affirmative Resolution yesterday.

Mr. Edelman: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that certain classes of police widows have to make monthly applications for their pensions; and whether he will substitute a system of quarterly application for the present arrangements.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I am aware that it has been the practice of some police authorities to require police pensioners to furnish monthly certificates of identity and it is, of course, essential that police authorities should take proper precautions to safeguard public moneys paid out by way of pension. It rests with individual police authorities to lay down such requirements as they think necessary and while I hope that these requirements will not be such as to inconvenience pensioners unduly, I should not feel justified in prescribing any standard procedure.

Mr. Edelman: Is it not an example of excessive bureaucracy that pensioners who have been receiving a pension over a number of years should have to establish their identity month after month? Is it not something which is obviously absurd and should be corrected?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: In the Metropolitan area life certificates are furnished yearly and in the meantime the receiver is satisfied by the receipt signature of the pensioners. Quarterly certificates are required in the case of someone other than the pensioner himself. Widows' pensions are paid weekly by the order book method. If the hon. Member has any improvement to suggest I shall be very glad to consider it, but that seems to me to be a reasonable method.

Mr. Edelman: Is it not the case that widows in particular have to establish identity month after month? Surely in the case of a police force with its power of inquiry the police ought to work up some system by which these widows will not have to establish identity month after month but quarterly, which surely should be adequate?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: If the hon. Member will give me particulars of the police authority in whose area he suggests that takes place, I will look into it and try and discover the reason. He will appreciate that I am the police authority only for the Metropolitan area and that is why I referred to the practice in that area.

Retired Officers' Association (Deputation)

Mr. I. Mikardo: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what reply he has given to a request from the National Association of Retired Police Officers that he should receive a deputation.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: The Association asked me to receive a deputation to discuss their application for representation on the Advisory Council of the National Police Fund and the provision made in the Police Pensions Regulations for awards to certain police widows I have informed the Association that, as regards the first point, application is being considered by the trustees of the Fund, and that in view of the answer which I gave to the hon. Member on 15th November. I do not think that any useful purpose would be served by my receiving a deputation.

Dependants' Pensions

Miss Irene Ward: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has completed his investi-

gations into the pensions paid to relatives of policemen who lose their lives in the performance of their duty; and if he will make a statement.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I am looking into question, which my predecessor had under consideration, but I am not in a position to make any statement at present. We had some discussion on this last night.

Miss Ward: May I ask whether my right hon. and learned Friend can give any indication as to when he will be in a position to make a statement, or is this matter covered by the general review of pensions which is being carried out by the Chancellor of the Exchequer?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I am sorry that my hon. Friend was not present at the debate last night when this matter was discussed. The position on this matter was indicated at that time and I do not want to go over it in detail today.

Oral Answers to Questions — MURDER CONVICTION (INQUIRY)

Mr. Hale: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is satisfied that David Ware, recently found guilty but insane on his own confession of the attempted murder of a woman by attacking her with a hammer, is not the same David Ware who once confessed to the murder, in similar circumstances, of a woman for which Walter Graham Rowland was convicted and hanged in 1947; and whether, in view of the fact that Rowland protested his innocence to the last, he will order an inquiry to ascertain whether any miscarriage of justice has occurred.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is satisfied that David Ware, recently found guilty but insane on his own confession, of the attempted murder of a woman by attacking her with a hammer, is not the same David Ware who once confessed to the murder, in similar circumstances, of a woman for which Walter Graham Rowland was convicted and hanged in 1947; and whether, in view of the fact that Rowland protested his innocence to the last, he will order an inquiry to ascertain whether any miscarriage of justice has occurred.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: The two men are the same. The confession was the subject at the time of an exhaustive inquiry by the late Mr. Jolly, K.C., appointed by the then Home Secretary, and Mr. Jolly's report was presented to Parliament in February, 1947, by command of His Majesty. In his report, Mr. Jolly rejected the confession which he regarded as false, and said that he was satisfied that there were no grounds for thinking that there had been any miscarriage of justice in the conviction of Rowland for murder. During the course of the inquiry Ware retracted his confession and in a signed statement published in the report said that his confession was absolutely untrue. There is nothing in the recent charge brought against Ware to require any further inquiry or action on my part.

Mr. Silverman: Would the right hon and learned Gentleman bear in mind that this case at the time occasioned the most acute public anxiety, that the recent development showing that this man had an insane obsession to do the very thing which he confessed to doing has served to increase that anxiety infinitely, that the police have in their possession a great deal of evidence in Rowland's favour which was never made available to the defence, and that in view of the enormous public importance of satisfying the public that an execution has not been carried out on an innocent man, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman cause a new inquiry to be made?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: The late Mr. Jolly who conducted the inquiry was known to me for nearly 30 years as one of the most careful and conscientious men whom I have ever known at the Bar. The results of the inquiry showed that he had taken immense pains with the subject, and I do not myself see that there is any reason to throw doubt on the conclusion to which he came.

Mr. Hale: In view of the fact—I do not think there is any dispute—that David John Ware is now in Broadmoor as a certified criminal lunatic convicted of a crime almost identical with the one to which he confessed, and that he made a statement at the time that he could not help doing these things and wanted to be protected from himself, does not this really give rise to the necessity for some

further inquiry, and would the right hon. and learned Gentleman start by making all relevant documents available in the Library of the House of Commons?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: With great respect to what the hon. Member says, I do not think that anything that has been said throws doubt on the inquiry which was held or justifies a further inquiry. If hon. Members have any specific points which they want to refer to me I shall, of course, be very pleased to look at them, but I do not want anything that is said by me today to throw doubt on the results of the inquiry which was conducted by Mr. Jolly.

Sir H. Shawcross: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) that the police had a great deal of evidence favourable to Rowland which they failed to disclose to the defence, and does he agree that it is the paramount duty of the prosecution and the police in all criminal cases to disclose all information, whether favourable or unfavourable to the defence?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I certainly agree with the last part of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's question, that it is the practice at the Bar of England, as I understand it, that prosecuting counsel must make known to the defence any evidence which is relevant to the matter. I must remind the right hon. and learned Gentleman that prosecutions are not a matter for the Home Office; they are a matter for the Law Officers' Department.
But with regard to the first part of the question, I have no information on the point which the hon. Member put to me. It came to my knowledge for the first time when he said it. I shall have inquiries made into it. Of course, I do say that it is contrary to practice that evidence should be withheld, but I must not be taken as admitting for a moment that that has been done, because I have not had a chance of inquiring into it.

Mr. Silverman: Is not the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the, police had in their possession a statement from a woman witness fully confirming Rowland's evidence as to an alibi, that the evidence was not made available to the defence, and that it was the subject of a later application in the Court of Criminal Appeal, which court held that


the evidence was then too late? It that evidence was not made available to the defence until after the trial, and if that evidence is now added to what Mr. Jolly did not know, that Mr. Ware was subject to an insane impulse to do this very kind of act, do not those two facts added together in themselves justify a most searching new inquiry now?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: It would be quite wrong for me to attempt to re-try the matter by answers to Questions in this House, and I do not think that the House can expect that I should go further than I have said, which is that if the hon. Gentleman or if any hon. Members who are interested will bring specific facts to my attention I shall inquire into those facts.

Oral Answers to Questions — JUVENILE COURTS (MAGISTRATES)

Mr. Janner: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what are the qualifications of magistrates who sit at Sessions to hear appeals from the juvenile court; and what is their average age in London and throughout the country as a whole; and
(2) whether he is aware that justices cannot adjudicate in the juvenile courts after 65 years of age, whereas the retiring age of those who sit at Sessions to hear appeals from the juvenile courts is 75 years of age; and what steps he is taking to correct this anomaly.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: Justices who have attained the age of 65 years cannot in general adjudicate in juvenile courts, but are eligible, up to the age of 75, for appointment to the appeal committee, which in a county hears appeals from juvenile courts as well as appeals in ordinary cases. Except in London, where there is special provision, the appeal committee is appointed by quarter sessions from among justices on the active list and quarter sessions are required to select, so far as practicable, justices having special qualifications for the hearing of appeals, including justices specially qualified for dealing with juvenile cases. It would not be practicable to have one age limit for justices hearing appeals in juvenile cases and another age limit in other cases. The

average age of the lay justices on the appeal panel in London is 64; the figure for the country as a whole is not available.

Mr. Janner: Whilst appreciating that reply, may I ask if it is not rather an anomaly that a justice who originally tries a case in the juvenile courts must not be of an age above 65, whereas a justice who tries an appeal from a decision of that court can have reached the age of 75? Ought not that anomaly to be removed one way or the other?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: The answer to the supplementary question is that quarter sessions must use discretion in electing their appeal committees. Surely that is not beyond the powers of quarter sessions benches.

Mr. Janner: Whilst appreciating that it is not beyond the powers of quarter sessions to do anything and everything, is this not an anomaly? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman say why the age limit is lower in one case than in the other?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: Because a special rule was desired for juvenile courts. The question of the appeal committee is essentially one for quarter sessions, and I am sure that any judicial body should be entitled to make its own selection and will use responsibility in doing so.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONALISED BOARDS (MEMBERS)

Mr. Erroll: asked the Prime Minister if he will publish, either in the OFFICIAL REPORT Or in the form of a White Paper, an up-to-date comprehensive list of all members appointed to central and regional nationalised boards of a commercial character, with details of individual salaries, pensions and expenses allowed, together with a separate list showing all individuals holding more than one appointment and what those appointments are.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Winston Churchill): I am arranging for the publication of this information in the form of a White Paper, which will be published shortly.

Mr. Philip Noel-Baker: May I ask two questions? In his return, will the right hon. Gentleman include the salaries, expenses and other arrangements of the part-time members of the nationalised boards, and, secondly, will he also publish some information about the salaries and expenses paid to the directors and managers of the larger industrial, commercial and financial undertakings under private enterprise?

The Prime Minister: We are dealing here with expenses which have to be found out of Votes provided by this House—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—or at any rate that place a burden on the taxpayers of this country—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]. I do not think I shall complicate the making of this return by extending it to the inordinate limits that the right hon. Gentleman suggests.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Is it not a fact that the expenses and salaries of the directors of the nationalised boards are paid by the consumer, as are those of private enterprise?

The Prime Minister: Why should the right hon. Gentleman be so afraid of the House getting this information?

Mr. Noel-Baker: Why should the Prime Minister and his supporters be afraid of our getting the information for which we ask?

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Swingler.

Mr. John Hynd: On a point of order, is it in order for hon. Members, when the Prime Minister gives what is demonstrably false information—

Hon. Members: Withdraw.

Mr. Speaker: I have not heard the point of order yet.

Mr. Hynd: Since it is within the knowledge of every hon. Member in this House, apparently, apart from the Prime Minister, that the salaries and expenses of the members of these boards are neither paid from the Exchequer nor by a Vote of this House, nor are they a burden on the taxpayer—

Mr. Speaker: That is surely a matter of debate and not a point of order.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCHOOL-LEAVING AGE

Mr. Stephen Swingler: asked the Prime Minister what instructions he has issued to the Ministers of Education and Labour regarding the pressure for juvenile labour created by the re-armament drive and the consequent danger of children leaving school before they have completed their education.

The Prime Minister: None, Sir.

Mr. Swingler: Will the Prime Minister then issue a categorical instruction to the Minister of Education that she is not to lower the school-leaving age and issue instructions to ensure that the long-term educational interests of the children are not sacrificed to the monster of re-armament?

The Prime Minister: I have nothing to add to the answer I have already given.

Mr. Douglas Jay: Can the Prime Minister now give an assurance that while Parliament is in Recess the Government will take no step towards altering either the school entry, or the school-leaving age?

The Prime Minister: I am not at all prepared on supplementary questions at Question time to give assurances—[An HON. MEMBER: "Yes or no."]—statements, which cover wide ranges—

Hon. Members: Why not?

Mr. Peart: Is the Prime Minister aware that his right hon. Friend the Minister of Education hedged on a very similar question last week and, in view of the anxiety in the country, will the Prime Minister give an assurance that no step will be taken which will frustrate the main principle of the Education Act, 1944.

The Prime Minister: I do not think it is the duty of Ministers when answering Questions to give general assurances about the whole future policy of the Government.

Hon. Members: Oh.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members have had their answer. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] It may not be the answer they wanted, but it is an answer. Mr. Chapman.

Mr. Swingler: On a point of order. In view of the unsatisfactory reply of the Prime Minister I propose to attempt to raise this question on the Adjournment at an early opportunity.

Oral Answers to Questions — ECONOMY PROPOSALS

Mr. Donald Chapman: asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the economies which his Government proposes to effect in public expenditure, he will broadcast to the nation about their impact, particularly on the food subsidies and the social services, including education.

The Prime Minister: The Government's detailed proposals for reducing public expenditure will be presented in the first instance to this House.

Mr. Chapman: Will not the Prime Minister try to explain his answer a little further, in view of the public concern about the whole matter? We have had a statement from the National Union of Teachers protesting about possible effects on the school-leaving age. The Prime Minister is sending us into the Recess without any information at all.

Hon. Members: Speech.

Hon. Members: Answer.

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is past half-past three.

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC HOUSES, NEW TOWNS (STATE MANAGEMENT)

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:

Mr. GRÆME FINLAY: ,—TO ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will initiate legislation to repeal the provisions of the Licensing Act, 1949, about State management of public houses in new towns.

Mr. Speaker: I understand that the Home Secretary desires to answer Question No. 78.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: Yes, Sir, with your permission and that of the House. The answer is: Yes, Sir, the Government propose to introduce legislation to repeal those provisions of the Licensing Act, 1949, which extended State management to new towns—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—and to make the development corporation and the licensing authority jointly responsible for deciding how many new

licences, or removals of licences, should be granted in each new town.

Mr. James Callaghan: Is it not remarkable that the Government can find time to fiddle about with this sort of thing when they can give us no assurances about the operation of the school-leaving age?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: The hon. Gentleman obviously does not live in a new town, and does not appreciate the amenities that are there required.

Mr. James Hudson: On what grounds does the right hon. and learned Gentleman propose to proceed with this legislation, especially since, first, during the Election, his party made no statement of this sort in their promises, and, second, the only statement that was put forward in the Election was on behalf of the liquor trade itself? Do the Tory Government carry out only what the liquor trade wants?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: The first answer to the hon. Gentleman is that this matter was put forward by my party at the General Election. [HON. MEMBERS: "When?"] The answer to his second point is that the suggestions which I have put forward differ in an essential and important particular from those that have been suggested by the brewers. On the third point which the hon. Gentleman asked me, I believe that State management is not the machinery to deal properly with scattered areas of this kind, and that the size and style and planning of the public houses can be left to the development corporation with the assistance of the licensing justices.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I would remind the House that we are to have a Bill on this matter. We may defer debate on it until then

Oral Answers to Questions — KOREA (CEASE-FIRE NEGOTIATIONS)

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper

Mrs. BARBARA CASTLE: ,—TO ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, before the House disperses for the Christmas Recess, he will make a statement on the progress of the ceasefire negotiations in Korea.

Mrs. Castle: On a point of order. In view of the much greater importance of Question No. 121 as compared with Question No. 78, Mr. Speaker, may I ask if special facilities could be given for the answering of Question No. 121?

Mr. Speaker: I cannot do that. I call the Private Notice Question.

Mr. Fenner Brockway: On a point of order. I desire to move the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 to call attention to a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely—

Mr. Speaker: That Motion can be moved only at the end of Questions. There are still a Private Notice Question and the Business Question to come.

Mr. Desmond Donnelly: On a point of order. May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to repeat your answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn, East (Mrs. Castle), because we could not hear it at this end of the House?

Mr. Speaker: My answer was that I could not comply with the hon. Lady's request. I can call a Question that is not reached only when it is represented by a Minister that the Question is one of special public interest to which he desires to give the answer. That has not been represented to me with regard to the hon. Lady's Question. Therefore, I cannot call it, as it was not reached before 3.30.

Mrs. Castle: On a point of order—

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Let us have one point of order at a time.

Mrs. Castle: On a point of order. Are we to take it that it has been represented to you, Mr. Speaker, by the Government, that it was much more important to deal with Question No., 78? [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. With reference to the hon. Lady's Question, no comparisons of importance were made. I merely received a request from the Home Secretary saying that he desired to answer Question No. 78, even if it were not reached by 3.30. That was all. There was no question of comparing the importance of the issues as between one Question and another.

Mrs. Castle: rose—

Hon. Members: Oh!

Mrs. Castle: In view of the great anxiety on the part of the parents of the boys who are fighting in Korea, is there no facility open to the House—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speech."]—for asking for an answer.

Hon. Members: Warmonger.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I want to hear what the hon. Lady is saying, and I ask both sides of the House please to keep order.

Mrs. Castle: Could I ask your guidance, Mr. Speaker? Is there no way in which it is possible to get from the Government a statement on this important matter before we go into Recess for nearly two months?

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Anthony Eden): I have had no representations at all about this Question. Although the Question was not reached, the answer is here. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about beer?"] I am perfectly ready to give the answer to it, and if I had had representations from the hon. Lady perhaps this trouble would have been avoided. After all, the hon. Lady must have guessed that Question No. 121 would not have been reached. Let me give the answer now. It is as follows:
In my speech in the foreign affairs debate on 19th November I gave an account of the progress made at the armistice discussions at Panmunjom up to that date.
Agreement was reached and subsequently ratified on 27th November on Item 2 of the armistice talks agenda relating to the establishment of a demarcation line and demilitarised zone. This, in brief, provided that the line of contact at that time would be the effective demarcation line in any full armistice agreement signed within 30 days. In the meantime, there would be no cessation of hostilities. If, however, discussions on the remaining items of the agenda should be prolonged beyond 30 days it was agreed that a new line would be delineated on the basis of the actual line of contact immediately prior to the signing of the armistice agreement.
The delegations next exchanged proposals on Item 3 (arrangements for carrying out and supervising the armistice). The North Koreans first rejected the idea of inspection outside the demilitarised zone. On 3rd December they modified their stand and, in particular, proposed that representatives of nations neutral in the Korean war should be invited to carry out inspection in such ports of entry in the rear as should be agreed by both sides. They have explained that such countries as Czechoslovakia, Poland. Switzerland and Denmark might be acceptable. The United Nations negotiators are now seeking urgent clarification of certain aspects of the Communist proposals.

Mrs. Castle: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman, may I ask if he is aware that there has been a cessation of hostilities on this front since the last report was made to this House; that Communist troops were playing volley ball across the cease-fire line and the United Nations Forces were not shooting at them and, in very mysterious circumstances and under orders from a very mysterious source, hostilities were restarted? In view of the great confusion of evidence coming from this front, does not the right hon. Gentleman think that this country ought to be more directly associated with these negotiations?

Mr. Eden: I do not think that there is confusion. We are in close touch with these developments, and I am satisfied that in the immensely difficult and complex handling of this affair we are informed, and we do give our advice and guidance.

Sir Herbert Williams: On a point of order. Am I to understand that if any disappointed hon. Member does not get an answer to a Question which he has on the Order Paper he has only to make enough noise and he can get one?

Mr. Speaker: In answer to that point of order, the right hon. Gentleman should have received my permission to read his answer after 3.30, but in view of the importance of the matter, I let him do so. But it must be clearly understood by hon. Members that, under the Standing Order, when 3.30 comes, Questions which are not reached cannot be answered unless there is a request beforehand to Mr. Speaker that, in view of the importance of the

Question, he desires to give an answer after that time. That is the rule on the matter applying to ordinary Questions put on the Order Paper.

Mr. F. J. Bellenger: Further to that point of order, Sir. I understand that the Foreign Secretary said that he was not approached to give an answer, but, nevertheless, you, Mr. Speaker, permitted him to give it. Would it be possible—I am not denying the importance of the Question—for the guidance of the House, for you to consider, and advise the House at a later date, how this rule should be applied because today we have had an example of a Minister approaching you and getting your permission to give an answer after 3.30, and giving it, and, on the other hand, of an hon. Member pressing for a reply from a Minister who had not before been advised?

Mr. Speaker: The procedure of a Minister asking leave of Mr. Speaker, and therefore, of the House, to answer a Question which has not been reached is quite old. It has been done in the past. It is quite out of order, without that permission, for a Question not reached earlier to be answered.

Lieut.-Colonel Marcus Lipton: The answer which you have just given, Mr. Speaker, is that the request should be made by the Minister to you before answering a Question after 3.30. May I ask you whether any request has been submitted to you by the Minister of Education to answer a Question today?

Mr. Speaker: I have received no such request.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: May I ask, Mr. Speaker, whether it is permissible to ask a supplementary question arising out of the answer which the right hon. Gentleman gave? May I ask the right hon. Gentleman what useful purpose could possibly be served by continuing hostilities after a safe military line on which to cease hostilities has been agreed by both sides, when everyone must hope that within 30 days sufficient agreement will be reached to prevent the outbreak of any further hostilities? Would not, in such a case, all the lives lost in those 30 days be completely and futilely thrown away for no useful purpose of any kind?

Mr. Eden: I have been into this on more than one occasion, and it has been agreed by all concerned that the cease-fire would be dependent upon the conclusion of a number of matters, as the House very well knows, including the exchange of prisoners, and I do not think that I can carry it further.

Mr. Silverman: I am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman has not understood my question; perhaps it was my fault. I understand that the cease-fire will not continue to operate unless and until all other matters have been agreed. What I am asking is that since these other matters are to be discussed within these 30 days, and since fighting will stop on this agreed line, if these other matters are agreed within this time what possible purpose is served by throwing away lives on both sides by seeking to alter the agreed line within the period?

Oral Answers to Questions — LONDON DOCKS (RESUMPTION OF WORK)

Mr. Alfred Robens: (by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Labour if he has any further statement to make about the lighterage dispute in the London Docks.

The Minister of Labour (Sir Walter Monckton): Yes, Sir. I met representatives of the employers and of the Lightermen's Union this morning at a joint conference and as a result I am happy to inform the House that the Union representatives will now recommend to their executive that there should be full resumption of normal working as soon as possible. I have just been informed that the executive have now unanimously endorsed a resolution for a full resumption at 6 o'clock tomorrow morning.

Mr. Robens: While I am sure that the whole House will welcome the statement made, may I ask if the right hon. and learned Gentleman can say whether food ships now awaiting discharge, and those due to arrive, will, in fact, be discharged in time for the Christmas trade?

Sir W. Monckton: I cannot give that assurance because I have not full information as to the state of the matter since this morning.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. C. R. Attlee: Will the Leader of the House state what the business will be on the resumption after the Christmas Recess?

The Minister of Health (Mr. Harry Crookshank): Yes, Sir. The business for the first week after the Christmas Recess will be as follows:
TUESDAY, 29TH JANUARY—Second Readings: Hydro-Electric Development (Scotland) Bill.
Metropolitan Police (Borrowing Powers) Bill.
Electricity Supply (Meters) Bill.
Industrial and Provident Societies (No. 1) Bill.
Committee stage of the necessary Money Resolutions.
WEDNESDAY, 30TH JANUARY—Debate on Welsh Affairs.
THURSDAY, 31ST JANUARY—Committee and remaining stages:
Merchant Shipping Bill.
Judicial Offices (Salaries, &c.) Bill.
Diplomatic Immunities (Commonwealth Countries and Republic of Ireland) Bill.
Second Reading: British Museum Bill.
FRIDAY, 1ST FEBRUARY—Consideration of Private Members' Bills.
During the week it is hoped to take the Committee and remaining stages of the Festival Pleasure Gardens Bill, if reported in time from the Select Committee to which it has been referred.

Mr. Attlee: Two questions arise out of that statement. Will the Welsh debate be on a Government Motion or on the Adjournment; and can an early day be arranged, after our return from the Recess, for a debate on Central African federation?

Mr. Crookshank: I shall have to consider both those requests. They are both obviously matters of importance, and there were some suggestions that the Central African debate should have been this side of Christmas; but as regards the more specific question about the Welsh affairs debate, I think that perhaps the form of debate may well be considered through the usual channels.

Mr. Thomas Steele: Can the Leader of the House help regarding business when we come back? Yesterday I introduced a Bill, and I am wondering if it could be possible to have the principle debated in the Scottish Grand Committee. It will be within the knowledge of the Leader of the House that during the 1945–50 Parliament there was an arrangement between the Government and the Opposition for an alteration of Standing Orders which enabled purely Scottish matters in Scottish Bills to be dealt with on Second Reading in the Scottish Grand Committee. I understand that the Government are anxious to help one Private Member's Bill along, and, that being so, is it not reasonable that my Bill, which was introduced yesterday, might have its Second Reading in the Scottish Grand Committee?

Hon. Members: What Bill is it?

Mr. Crookshank: Without looking up the exact references which the hon. Gentleman has mentioned I could not give the hon. Member an answer, but my general impression was that there is a difference between Private Members' Bills and other business.

Mr. Steele: I had the same impression, but I was told by the Public Bill Office that this was a Public Bill introduced by a Private Member, and that Standing Order No. 60 states that this Bill could be debated on Second Reading in the Scottish Grand Committee. What it requires is a Motion from a Minister to that effect to be moved in the House. Extra Ministers for Scotland have now been appointed, and in view of the fact that there is now no Scottish legislation other than this on the Order Paper, we think it quite reasonable to ask the Government to move the necessary Motion that the Second Reading of this Bill be taken in the Scottish Grand Committee. I am sorry that the Secretary of State for Scotland is not with us because he may have given us a lead.

Lieut.-Colonel Walter Elliot: If permission were given for this Bill to be dealt with on Second Reading in the Scottish Grand Committee, would permission also be given to other Private Members' Bills which might be introduced from this side of the House?

Mr. Crookshank: That shows that this is a matter which obviously requires consideration, and as Leader of the House I am not prepared to give a quick answer today.

Mr. John Paton: Might the House generally be let into the secret of what is the Bill we are talking about?

Mr. Hector McNeil: It is a Bill which limits the sale of houses in Scotland which are normally available for letting. The right hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) has made a false point. What we are pressing on the Leader of the House is that since the Standing Orders provide for Scottish business to be taken in the Scottish Grand Committee, and since this is a Bill exclusive to Scotland, it would be eminently reasonable, and save the time of the House as well as providing room for another Bill, if this Bill were remitted to the Scottish Grand Committee.

Mr. Crookshank: That may be so, but until I study the matter I cannot give an answer. The hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, West (Mr. Steele) studied the matter this morning. If he had rung me up I would have studied it too, but I did not and, therefore, I am not in a position to make a definite statement now.

Mr. Douglas Jay: As we are discussing business eight weeks hence, can the Leader of the House, or perhaps the Minister of Education, who is now with us, give the assurance that the Prime Minister was afraid to give earlier, that the Government will take no steps during the Recess to alter the school-leaving age?

Sir Richard Acland: Would the Leader of the House seriously consider an early date after we resume for a debate on Malaya, in view of the very genuine anxieties which were aroused at Question time yesterday on this subject?

Mr. Crookshank: I think we shall have to see when we come back what are the most important subjects to be debated. I will take note of it.

Mr. C. S. Taylor: May I ask the Leader of the House whether the Government will give time for a debate on a Motion which stands on the Order Paper in the name of certain of my hon. Friends


and myself about the conduct of a right hon. Gentleman in debate, in view of the fact that this Motion is designed to up-bald the prestige of the House?

[That, in view of the fact that some of the words used by the right honourable Gentleman the Member for Easington during the debate on the Committee stage of the Home Guard Bill on the morning of 28th November, 1951, were unbecoming one of His Majesty's Privy Councillors and a Member of this House, this House is of the opinion that the offending words should be expunged from the OFFICIAL REPORT.]

Mr. Crookshank: I do not think that it will be possible.

Mr. Frederick Peart: Will the Leader of the House say whether time will be given for the Motion in my name, and that of over 100 hon. Members, asking that no economies should be made in the educational system by lowering the school-leaving age or raising the entry age? In view of the importance of this matter, and because we have been sidetracked today, will the right hon. Gentleman give us an assurance? Will he give us a reply?

Mr. Crookshank: We are discussing the business for the week when we return. The hon. Gentleman knows that after we return there will be alternate Fridays available for Private Members' Motions, and, therefore, it seems to me that the subject he has in view might very well come on then.

Mr. A. C. Manuel: Would the Leader of the House, before his researches into the Standing Orders about the Bill mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, West (Mr. Steele), to see if the constitution would allow the matter to be debated on Second Reading in the Scottish Grand Committee, give us an assurance that he would be receptive to the idea of that being done? The idea of a limitation on the sale of tenant-occupied houses is an important matter to the people of Scotland.

Mr. Speaker: On this matter may I say that the remission of a Bill is business which cannot be taken until the order for Second Reading of the Bill is before the House. As that is postponed to 28th February we cannot settle it today.

Mr. Steele: What we are asking to be done, Sir, is for the Bill to go to the Scottish Grand Committee for the purpose of Second Reading.

Mr. Speaker: It does not seem possible to decide that question at the moment.

Mr. George Thomas: Would you advise me, Mr. Speaker, whether there is left to hon. Members, within the rules of the House, any way by which we can help to allay public anxiety about education, and obtain a statement from the Leader of the House that no major decision will be taken whilst Members are silenced through the Recess?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a matter for me.

Mr. C. S. Taylor: On a point of order. I do not wish to press this point unduly at the moment, but as the Motion on the Order Paper to which I previously referred affects the conduct of a right hon. Gentleman in debate and may, indeed, affect the honour of the right hon. Gentleman, would it not be right for this matter to be discussed at an early date?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order.

ADJOURNMENT MOTIONS (STANDING ORDER No. 9)

Mr. A. Fenner Brockway: I desire to move the adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, to call attention to a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the danger of disturbances in Bechuanaland owing to the refusal of the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations to allow Seretse Khama to return to the Protectorate while Tshekedi Khama is allowed to return immediately.

Mr. Speaker: We shall be, I hope, in a short time, on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House and, therefore, I need not go into the merits of the hon. Gentleman's proposal. I cannot accept a Motion under Standing Order No. 9 when the business before the House is, in fact, the Adjournment of the House.

Mr. Brockway: I accept your decision on that matter. Sir, but may I respectfully put this point? The Motion for this afternoon is the general Adjournment. My Motion is for a special Adjournment, and is it not—

Mr. Speaker: I can shorten this. There is no such thing as a special Adjournment.

Mr. Driberg: On a point of order. If the matter submitted by my hon. Friend seemed to you, on merit, Sir, to deserve discussion, supposing the House were not already proceeding to a Motion for the Adjournment, would it not be in order to ask you whether you would consider allowing my hon. Friend to catch your eye at the time at which the Adjournment of the House would have been moved if it had been possible to follow the procedure of Standing Order No. 9?

Mr. Speaker: It is quite in order for the hon. Gentleman to ask that question, but I would not like to forecast that he will catch my eye in the course of this debate. It is proposed to move a Motion for the Adjournment. If I accepted the hon. Member's Motion, all he would get would be the Adjournment, and it would not make any difference.

Mr. Herbert Morrison: Further to that point of order, but not on the merits of my hon. Friend's Motion. I would ask you, Sir, to consider the matter with a view to giving a Ruling at some future date on what seems to be a serious point, is it intended that on any day that the Government will move the Adjournment in order that a certain debate shall take place, therefore on that day Standing Order No. 9 is inoperative? If my hon. Friend got his way, his Adjournment would come on at 7 o'Clock. I submit for your consideration that it is a serious thing, if it happens, fortuitously, that the Government are to move the adjournment of the House, that Standing Order No. 9 procedure should become inoperative, with the result that hon. Members lose most valuable rights.

Mr. Speaker: On the Motion for the Adjournment any topic can be discussed, with the well-known limitations cutting out matters of legislation and taxation, such as are known to the House. The desire to have a debate on defence today is a matter for the House and not for me. So far as I am concerned, the Motion is, "That this House do now adjourn," and under the Rules of Order any topic can be discussed, though it has become the custom and the usage of the House to use this Motion for a particular topic.

Mr. Attlee: I am not quite clear on that point, because under the Standing Orders the Adjournment of the House can be moved for the discussion of a specific subject, which is then set down for a particular time. The general Adjournment debate would not provide for that particular subject being called at a special time. Is not that the effective point under the Standing Order?

Mr. Speaker: It is, and if the right hon. Gentleman wishes me to consider this matter further I will gladly do so. As far as I am aware, what I have told the House is perfectly correct as to the Rules of order.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: Would you consider this point, Sir? Would you also have regard to the consideration that if you, with the support of the House, had allowed the adjournment to be moved under Standing Order No. 9, then for the period of three hours, from 7 o'Clock until 10 o'Clock, the House would be entitled to discuss, not all matters which would be in order under the general Adjournment Motion but only those special matters of definite public importance which had caused you to permit the adjournment to be moved? If that is so, does it not go a long way to justify my hon. Friend's distinction between a general Adjournment and a special Adjournment?

Mr. Speaker: I see that point, and I will certainly consider it with everything else. I think that any alteration would need some modification of the Standing Order.

RAILWAY FREIGHT CHARGES (INCREASE)

The Minister of Transport (Mr. John Maclay): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and with the leave of the House, I should like to make a statement on British Transport Commission charges.
The British Transport Commission estimate that rises in wage rates and prices during 1951 will increase their annual working expenses by at least £40 million, excluding certain wage increases granted in 1951 but made retrospective to the end of 1950. About £26 million of this is in respect of increases in wages and salaries, of which about £18 million is represented by the


effects of the recent decision of the Railway Staff National Tribunal of 7th November last.
The Commission also estimate that the rising trend of prices will further increase their working expenses next year by about £11 million, and that, with railway passenger and freight, and dock and canal, charges at their present level, the Commission would, in 1952, incur a deficit of about £39.5 million. This would be in addition to the accumulated deficit from past years which was nearly £40 million at the end of 1950, and may well be more at the end of 1951.
The Transport Tribunal recently concluded a public inquiry into a draft passenger charges scheme which, if confirmed, would produce in a full year additional revenue of about £22.8 million. The draft scheme may be altered by the Tribunal, but even if confirmed without alteration there would still be a deficit of between £16 million and £17 million in a full year.
In these circumstances, the Commission applied to me under Section 82 of the Transport Act for authority to increase, as soon as possible, existing railway freight, dock and canal, charges by 10 per cent., subject to a maximum increase of 10s. per ton in the case of railway charges for merchandise by goods train and perishable traffic by passenger train, and subject also to special increases of about 20 per cent. in the charges for small parcels by goods train and 50 per cent, in the charges for the carriage of returned empties. These increases would produce about £22 million in a future year. The effect of the maximum increase of 10s. per ton would be to limit the increase in the case of some long distance traffic, for example, between the South and the Highlands of Scotland.
As required by the Act, I referred the application for the advice of the permanent members of the Transport Tribunal, acting as a consultative committee, and asked that their advice should be tendered as soon as possible. I have received such advice in a memorandum, a copy of which is being circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
The committee recommend that I should authorise, as soon as possible, the increases applied for, except that the increases in the charges for small parcels

and returned empties should, like the increases in other charges, be 10 per cent. This modification would reduce the estimated yield from £22 million to £21 million.
I am satisfied that these recommendations should be accepted and I propose to make Regulations accordingly, to take effect as from 31st December, 1951. I regret the necessity for this emergency measure, but the Commission, like other industries and services, cannot keep their charges static in the face of the rising cost of labour and materials. They are at present incurring a net revenue deficiency of something like £¾ million per week and it is clear that this cannot be allowed to continue. If the increase is not made, it will become progressively more difficult, if not impossible, for the Commission to fulfil their statutory obligation to pay their way.
While this increase in charges is necessary, and cannot be avoided by immediate economies which it is within the power of the Commission to make, the House will be aware that the Government is not satisfied that the structure of the country's transport system as a whole, is such as to secure the best and most economical service to the community. This whole question, which of course includes efficiency, is under close and urgent examination by the Government.

Mr. Alfred Barnes: This statement is in almost identical terms with that which I introduced earlier in the year. On that occasion, the then Opposition demanded a debate and the Government readily consented. Does it not make it indefensible, when the Minister proposes to make these alterations on 31st December, that the House should be dismissed without any opportunity to discuss them?
I want, further, to refer to two statements which the hon. Gentleman has just made. He admits that the Commission, like other bodies, must meet the rising costs of labour and materials. Then, in the latter part of his statement, he refers to proposed Government action. The only statement that we have so far had on proposed Government action is the handing back to private enterprise of those sections that are making a profit, whereas in this case the bulk of the burden is on the railways.

Mr. Maclay: The right hon. Gentleman refers to the fact that this statement is in similar terms to the one previous. That is true, but I am sure he realises that in four or five weeks it has not been possible to achieve all those economies which, we hope, will be ultimately achieved. On the question of the possibility of debate, this matter is debated—as I noticed was announced in the previous statement to which the right hon. Gentleman has just referred—when the Regulations are laid, because they are subject to annulment.

Mr. Barnes: We shall be sent away before the Regulations are laid. That is the point.

Mr. Maclay: I think it will be found—I say this with caution—that there was
some considerable period before the Regulations were debated on the previous occasion.

Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton: Would my hon. Friend bear in mind the tremendous burden which high transport costs have for a very long time imposed upon the Highlands and the North of Scotland? If the Commission are to get these rate increases in full, special consideration must be given to that area.

Mr. John MacLeod: Did not the Cameron Report go into this question very fully and make three recommendations? Have those recommendations been taken fully into account?

Mr. Maclay: Perhaps hon. Members will study the paragraph of my statement which deals with the maximum increase of 10s. per ton, which is specifically designed to help the more distant parts of the country.

Mr. James Callaghan: As the Minister did not reply to the last part of the supplementary question which my right hon. Friend asked him, may I ask that when he reconsiders the structure of the transport industry he will also reconsider the proposals to denationalise part of road transport? Can he possibly explain how it can help the transport system, which can be efficient only if it is integrated, to hive off a part of it?

Mr. Maclay: I do not consider that that arises out of the statement which I made.

Mr. Walter Monslow: Does not the Minister now agree that co-ordination of inland transport is the only solution to the economic difficulties of the railway industry, and that the Government have no consideration for transport or for railways in particular if they take off road haulage?

Mr. Maclay: That does not arise out of the statement which I have made.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: We cannot debate this statement now.

Mr. Callaghan: As we cannot debate this matter now, and as we cannot move the adjournment of the House, may I ask how soon it will be before the Government either give us a chance to debate the statement, or take off some of the very thin subjects they have put down for the first week after the Recess and give us a chance in that way?

Mr. Aneurin Bevan: On a point of order. Is not it a misuse of the statutory duties that the Minister has to carry out to use an opportunity of this sort to make general observations which have nothing whatever to do with those statutory duties, and to leave the House of Commons for two months with that statement over its head, without an opportunity to discuss it?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order for me.

Mr. Bevan: Mr. Bevan rose—

Hon. Members: Sit down!

Mr. Bevan: Mr. Bevan rose—

Mr. Speaker: Does the right hon. Gentleman rise on a point of order?

Mr. Bevan: Yes, Sir. I wish to make a further statement. It is a very difficult position in which the House is put if a Minister makes a statement involving political considerations which the House is not in a position to counteract, or debate, or discuss in any way. When a Minister makes a statement carrying out his statutory duties he should confine himself to that and that alone.

Mr. Speaker: I may say that Ministers' statements made at this late hour have been a cause of difficulty to the House ever since I have been a Member


of it. I see no way in which this matter can be debated, as there is no Question before the House. That is the effect of it from my point of view, and that is why I cannot allow a debate.

Following is the memorandum:

1. By a letter dated 23rd November you requested our advice on a proposal made by the British Transport Commission that they should he authorised under Section 82 of the Transport Act, 1947—
(a) to make the increases in railway freight rates and charges described in the Commission's memorandum in the manner following—

"Proposals—

(1) A general increase of 10 per cent. (except as hereunder provided) on existing rates and charges, including miscellaneous charges, in respect to merchandise traffic by goods and passenger trains, subject to a maximum increase of 10s. per ton in the case of merchandise by goods train and perishable traffic by passenger train.
(2) An increase of 50 per cent. in the existing scale of additional charges in respect to small parcels (other than returned empties) by goods train ("smalls" bonus). This is estimated to be equivalent to an increase of approximately 20 per cent. on this class of traffic.
(3) An increase of 50 per cent. in the existing charges for the carriage of returned empties."

(b) to increase by 10 per cent. all the harbour, docks, piers, canals and inland waterways charges now in operation which are regulated by statutory provisions.

2. In your letter you informed us that you were impressed with the importance of taking the earliest practicable steps to prevent the financial position of the Commission from becoming unmanageable and asked that our advice should be tendered as soon as possible.

3. If we may be permitted to say so, the request for our advice as a matter of urgency has placed us in some difficulty.

4. We are on the point of concluding a public hearing into a Passenger Charges Scheme submitted by the Commission. We shall, therefore, in the reasonably near future have in effect to decide what, if any, additional contribution can he expected of passengers in relief of the evident financial necessities of the Commission. In these circumstances we do not think it would be right for us to enter upon any detailed discussion in this memorandum of the extent of those necessities.

5. All that we think it proper to say at this juncture is that as a result of the examination of the financial position and prospects of the Commission which the public inquiry has involved and of the additional information in the Commission's memorandum we are satisfied—

(a) that the general considerations advanced by the Commission are in substance well founded:

(b) that upon such an estimate as is possible in the circumstances of the moment the annual deficit of the Commission at the existing levels of freight and passenger charges would prove to be not less than £35m. and might well be £40m.:
(c) that whatever additional revenue it may be equitable and practicable to obtain from the passenger services can do no more than alleviate the financial position of the Commission:
(d) that there is at present no prudent alternative to an increase in freight charges aimed at providing in a full year additional revenue of the order of £20m.:
(e) that a general increase of 10 per cent. on existing rates and charges is the best available means of meeting the Commission's necessities.

6. We are not satisfied that there is any sufficient justification for imposing what is in effect a special surcharge on the small parcels and returned empties traffic.

7. We recommend accordingly that regulations he made as soon as possible authorising the Commission to make—

(a) the additional charges described under head (1) of the "Proposals" set out in paragraph 1 (a) of this memorandum, subject to the deletion in head (1) of the words "(except as hereunder provided)", and,
(b) the additional charges specified in paragraph 1 (b) of this memorandum.

HUBERT HULL.

A. E. SEWEI.L.

J. C. POOLE.

3rd December, 1951.

BILL PRESENTED

MINERS' WELFARE BILL

"to discontinue the royalties welfare levy, dissolve the Miners' Welfare Commission and wind up the miners' welfare fund; to provide for the determination of certain trusts and agreements relating to property derived from the said fund, for the transfer to the National Coal Board or the Coal Industry Social Welfare Organisation of certain property, rights, liabilities, obligations and functions, and for requiring the said Board to make certain payments to the said organisation; to amend section forty-one of the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act, 1946; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid," presented by Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd; supported by Mr. Joynson-Hicks and the Solicitor-General; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Tuesday, 29th January, and to be printed. [Bill 43.]

ADJOURNMENT (CHRISTMAS)

4.18 p.m.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Harry Crookshank): I beg to move,
That this House, at its rising Tomorrow, do adjourn till Tuesday, 29th January.
The proposals of the Government with regard to the dates for the Christmas Recess were made known to the House some time ago, actually by myself, as reported in HANSARD of 12th November, when I said that we would propose to adjourn tomorrow, 7th December, and meet again on Tuesday, 29th January.
The House will also recollect that the subject formed a large part of the debate on the official Opposition's second Amendment to the Address in reply to the Gracious Speech. On that occasion, not only my right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Local Government, but I myself explained the attitude of the Government on the matter. Therefore, I do not think I shall be treating the House with any discourtesy if I do not amplify the proposals again, less than a month afterwards because, I am quite sure they are fully in the minds of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen.
I would take the opportunity—I know it is not necessary for the older Members of the House, but it might be of some help to those of our colleagues who have come into the House for the first time—to remind the House that power already exists for Parliament to be re-called to meet at an earlier date should the public interest so require. And I can certainly give the House the assurance that the Government would not hesitate to take such steps as it might have to take for the re-call of Parliament, should it be necessary—

Mr. Julian Snow: Mr. Julian Snow (Lichfield and Tamworth) rose—

Mr. Crookshank: I am merely explaining the situation. That is the situation, and some hon. Members may not be aware of it. So, having already explained—

Mr. Snow: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way now? Does the initiative lie entirely and only with the Government on that point?

Mr. Crookshank: It is a decision of Mr. Speaker on representations made by His Majesty's Government so far as I am aware—

Mr. Snow: Only the Government?

Mr. Crookshank: It is a Standing Order, so far as I am aware. But, as I say, the House can be assured that the Government would, of course, take any necessary action should the occasion arise.

4.20 p.m.

Mr. Herbert Morrison: I beg to move, to leave out "Tomorrow," and to insert "on Friday, 14th December" instead thereof.
I presume it will be convenient if we discuss this Amendment and the next proposed Amendment, namely, to leave out "29th January," and to insert "22nd January," at the same time. It will be seen that the proposal we make is that a week should be added to the Sitting of the House forthwith and that the House should meet a week earlier than would be the case under the Motion moved by the Leader of the House. That would reduce the Recess by a fortnight.
As Question time went on this afternoon, and we got to the statements, the strength of this Amendment steadily increased. In all the circumstances, we think that it is monstrous that the House should have two months' Recess. We think it should be reduced to the somewhat normal period of round about six weeks, or so. There has been a widespread desire in the House for discussion.

Hon. Members: Speak up.

Mr. Morrison: What?

Mr. Speaker: There is a request that the right hon. Gentleman should speak a little louder.

Mr. Morrison: I am nearly at open-air meeting stage as it is, in order to be heard at all. But we are all right now.
The House has been anxious to discuss the new proposals with regard to Africa, which are of the very greatest importance. Unfortunately, it has not been found possible to provide time this side of the Christmas Adjournment. There was the announcement of the Government with regard to the special agricultural Price Review, which has resulted in very important questions as to fertilizer and food


prices in relation to subsidies on food prices, and so on. Whatever the merits may be, the social and public consequences of that are so considerable that we ought to have had time to debate it.
We on this side of the House have been seeking from the Prime Minister, and other Ministers, a statement regarding the persistent rumours about altering the school entry and school-leaving age. The Government have refused to say whether they are contemplating such a step. They have equally refused to say they are not contemplating such a step. We should have liked the opportunity to press the Government and, by way of debate, to have secured a declaration on this matter. If the Government have no such intentions they ought to inform the educational world straight away and put them out of the anxiety which undoubtedly they are in.
Today, we heard two very important announcements. One, that a Bill is to be introduced—about which the Government did not breathe a word, so far as I know, at the Election—for the repeal of certain provisions as to the sale of intoxicating liquor in new towns. This announcement is made on the last effective day before the Adjournment, which takes place tomorrow—

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Christmas cheer!

Mr. Morrison: The noble Lord said something about Christmas cheer. He should not be so indiscreet as to remind me about Christmas bonuses of food, if the party of Mr. Scrooge want to paint themselves as the party of good cheer they had better think again.
Then we heard the announcement from the Minister of Transport that transport charges are going up. When my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham, South (Mr. Barnes) made a similar announcement earlier, it sent the Opposition right up in the air, and they demanded a debate. When is the increase to operate? In the middle of the Christmas Recess, on 31st December, and the House is getting no chance to debate it.
These are specific matters and I am sure the list could be added to. Heaven knows what the Government will get up to by way of administrative action of one sort or another, by bringing in Orders

or by directions, without Parliament being here to challenge them. They themselves have asserted that the general situation is exceedingly serious. That also is a reason, which they themselves have urged when in Opposition, as to why the Christmas Recess should not be abnormally long. These are good and conclusive reasons why the Christmas Recess should he diminished from the period proposed by the Government, which, in itself, is d shorter period than they originally proposed. But we still think it too long, and we ask the House to support this Amendment.

4.25 p.m.

Mr. Frederick Peart: I wish to support the Amendment for the reason that the Government have refused, particularly in the field of education, to clarify their intentions. We have put down for discussion a Motion, signed by over 100 hon. Members on this side of the House, asking that there should be no economies in educational expenditure and we feel that any departure from the main Education Act should be opposed. [Interruption.] At any rate, the seat which my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) has now taken on the Front Bench shows there is plenty of unity on my side of the House. We are united in our desire to extend the Sitting and beg the Government not to make any decision during the Christmas Recess on this matter.
Not only are we concerned about but the representatives of professional organisations throughout the country have expressed opposition to any alteration of the Education Act and any attack on the standards of educational opportunity for our children. I feel it is important that we should have time to discuss education by extending the opportunities for debate and I hope that the Leader of the House will reconsider this matter.

4.26 p.m.

Mr. T. Driberg: My right hon. Friend who moved the Amendment stated that several important new announcements have been made today. There is yet another important announcement, also made today, an announcement of a very serious—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—and important change of policy about the return to the Bamangwato tribe of Tshekedi Khama and Seretse Khama.
The point I want to make is this. When my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Fenner Brockway) sought your permission, Mr. Speaker, to move the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9, you, naturally, pointed out that this was impossible, since the debate today was to be on the Adjournment anyway. But it may well be that some hon. Members who succeed in catching your eye in the course of the debate today will address themselves to this other very important subject, and not to the subject which had already been agreed as the main subject for the debate today.
They would obviously not do so if this House were to continue in session for, at any rate, part of the next week, so that one day could be allotted next week to a discussion of the very important announcement by the Government on the question of Tshekedi Khama. If there is no such prolongation of the present session it is obvious that there is a serious risk of a most inconveniently disorderly debate, as it were, or, at any rate, a ragged debate today on the Adjournment since many hon. Members will be discussing the subject of defence and others will be discussing the question of Tshekedi Khama and his return to his tribe.
I therefore suggest that this is another reason why the House should support the Amendment moved by my right hon. Friend and should insist that the Government give us more time before Christmas for discussing the very important new announcements of policy which have been made in the month since the Leader of the House first addressed us on this subject.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. James Hudson: Without further reference to another matter which has been referred to by my right hon. Friend—[Laughter.] I submit, despite the laughter, that hon. Members have reason to spend some time on the question of the willingness of the Tory Party to meet the claims of the brewers when the Government neglect so many other subjects. I wish particularly to refer to a question that arose earlier today.
We are going away for two months—[HON. MEMBERS: "Seven weeks."] All right—we are going away for seven weeks,

which will be long enough for a great many lives to be lost in Korea. We are going away because, presumably, according to the Foreign Secretary, we must leave an opportunity for the question of prisoners of war to be dealt with. I submit to the Foreign Secretary and to the House that there is no likelihood of any greater safety or any greater comfort to be secured for those prisoners by the attitude of a House of Commons that is prepared to go away for seven weeks while this useless slaughter in Korea continues.
Even had no other matter been referred to, there is a continuing reason why the House should remain in Session in order to bring to a conclusion the fighting now going on in Korea, when so many people in the country are looking longingly to what they thought they would get from the beginning of the truce talks that have been started there. It is a wicked thing that the Government should have brought us to a period of a seven weeks' delay on this matter while so many risks will have to be taken by our men and so much useless slaughter will have to continue.

4.33 p.m.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: There is still another reason why it is quite intolerable that the House should be allowed to go into Recess for a period of seven weeks. A great many Members on this side were profoundly alarmed and dissatisfied at the refusal of the Foreign Secretary yesterday to give the House any assurance on the question of German re-armament.
I regard it as quite intolerable that there should be any risk that while the House is in Recess for a period of seven weeks, the Government should take an irrevocable decision on the question of German re-armament, which a great many people in the House would regard as a matter of at least equal concern to the affairs that are happening in Korea.
There is on the Order Paper a Motion in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, South (Mr. Elwyn Jones), and myself, and a number of other hon. Members, deploring the Foreign Secretary's refusal to give an assurance that Parliament will be consulted before the United Kingdom is committed to support any actual measures of German rearmament. I hoped that the House would


have had a full opportunity of discussing that subject. It may well be that there is incidental reference to it in today's debate, but that is now much less likely in view of the multitude of other subjects which will, no doubt, be considered in this debate, including the questions of Seretse Khama, Tshekedi Khama, education, and so forth.
I very much hope that the Amendment will be supported on all sides and that, in addition, we shall have during today's debate an assurance from the Government that no irrevocable decision will be taken on the subject of German re-armament until the House has been consulted.

4.36 p.m.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: When the first announcement of the ceasefire negotiations in Korea was made in the House by the ex-Foreign Secretary, I ventured to ask whether this was not the best news we had heard from Korea since the commencement of hostilities. The ex-Foreign Secretary agreed with that, and I believe that at the time when that cease-fire announcement was made there went up, not only from the people of this

country, but from people all over the world, a great sigh of relief because it was thought that this desperate, futile slaughter in Korea was about to end.

For many weeks since that time, this has gone on week after week, day after day, and it is a great tragedy indeed—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew): I cannot quite link this up with the Amendment which is before the House.

Mr. Hughes: It is a tragedy indeed that we should be leaving for eight weeks' holiday, leaving this decision to be made at a time when our people want to see a definite cease-fire and an ending of hostilities before Christmas. As representing Scottish soldiers and the relatives of Scots soldiers who are taking part in this futile slaughter in Korea, I join in the protest against the dispersal of the House on this occasion.

Question put, "That 'Tomorrow' stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 294; Noes, 246.

Division No. 27]
AYES
4.40 p.m.


Aitken, W. T.
Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Eden, Rt. Hon. A.


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Burden, F. F. A.
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.


Alport, C. J. M.
Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (Saffron Walden)
Erroll, F. J.


Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Fell, A.


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.
Carson, Hon. E.
Finlay, Graeme


Arbuthnot, John
Gary, Sir R.
Fisher, Nigel


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Channon, H.
Fletcher, Walter (Bury)


Astor, Hon. J. J. (Plymouth, Sutton)
Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S.
Fletcher-Cooke, C.


Aster, Hon. W. W. (Bucks, Wycombe)
Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Fort, R.


Baker, P. A. D.
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)
Foster, John


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Clyde, Rt. Hon. J. L.
Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe &amp; Lonsdale)


Baldwin, A. E.
Cole, Norman
Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell


Banks, Col. C.
Colegate, W. A.
Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)


Barber, A. P. L.
Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)


Barlow, Sir John
Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert
Gammans, L. D.


Baxter, A. B.
Cooper-Key, E. M.
Garner-Evans, E. H.


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Cranborne, Viscount
Glyn, Sir Ralph


Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Godber, J. B.


Bennett, Sir Peter (Edgbaston)
Crouch, R. F.
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Crowder, John E. (Finchley)
Gough, C. F. H.


Bennett, William (Woodside)
Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)
Gower, H. R.


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Cuthbert, W. N.
Graham, Sir Fergus


Birch, Nigel
Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)
Gridley, Sir Arnold


Bishop, F. P.
Davidson, Viscountess
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)


Black, C. W.
Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)
Grimston, Robert (Westbury)


Bossom, A. C.
De la Bère, R.
Hare, Hon. J. H.


Bowen, E. R.
Deedes, W. F.
Harris, Frederic (Croydon)


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Digby, S. Wingfield
Harris, Reader (Heston)


Boyle, Sir Edward
Dodds-Parker, A. D
Harrison, Lt.-Col. J. H. (Eye)


Braine, B. R.
Donaldson, Comdr C. E. McA
Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Donner, P. W.
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)


Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N. W.)
Doughty, C. J. A.
Harvie-Watt, Sir George


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm
Hay, John


Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Drayson, G. B.
Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.


Brooman-White, R. C.
Drewe, C.
Heath, Edward


Browne, Jack (Govan)
Dugdale, Mj. Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)
Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.


Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T
Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Higgs, J. M. C.


Bullard, D. G.
Duthie, W. S.
Hill, Dr Charles (Luton)


Bullock, Capt. M.
Eccles, Rt. Hon. D. M.
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)




Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter


Hirst, Geoffrey
Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Holland-Martin, C. J.
Markham, Major S. F.
Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)


Holmes, Sir Stanley (Harwich)
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)


Holt, A. F.
Marples, A. E.
Snadden, W. McN.


Hope, Lord John
Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)
Soames, Capt. C.


Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Marshall, Sidney (Sutton)
Spearman, A. C. M.


Horobin, I. M.
Maude, Angus
Speir, R. M.


Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence
Handling, R.
Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)


Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)


Howard, Greville (St. Ives)
Medlicott, Brig. F.
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Mellor, Sir John
Stevens, G. P.


Hudson, Rt. Hon. Robert (Southport)
Molson, A. H. E.
Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)


Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)
Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)


Hulbert, Wing Comdr. N. J.
Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir Thomas
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Hurd, A. R.
Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Storey, S.


Hutchinson, Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)
Nabarro, G. D. N.
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)


Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Nicholls, Harmar
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)
Nicholson, G.
Studholme, H. G.


Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.
Nield, Basil (Chester)
Summers, G. S.


Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.
Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.
Sutcliffe, H.


Jenkins, R. C. D. (Dulwich)
Nugent, G. R. H.
Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)


Jennings, R.
Nutting, Anthony
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Oakshott, H. D.
Teeling, W.


Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)
Odey, G. W
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)


Jones, A. (Hall Green)
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Antrim, N.)
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.
Thompson, Kenneth Pugh (Walton)


Kaberry, D.
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)


Keeling, E. H.
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hn. Peter (Monmouth)


Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)
Orr-Ewing, Ian L. (Weston-super-Mare)
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.


Lambert, Hon. G.
Partridge, E.
Tilney, John


Lambton, Viscount
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.
Touche, G. C.


Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Perkins, W. R. D.
Turner, H. F. L.


Langford-Holt, J. A.
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.
Turton, R. H.


Leather, E. H. C.
Peyton, J. O. W. W.
Vane, W. M. F.


Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Legh, P. R. (Petersfield)
Pilkington, Capt. R. A
Vosper, D. F.


Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.
Powell, J. Enoch
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Lindsay, Martin
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (Marylebone)


Linstead, H. N.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L
Walker-Smith, D. C.


Lloyd, Rt. Hn. G. (King's Norton)
Profumo, J. D.
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Raikes, H. V.
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.
Rayner, Brig. R.
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Longden, Gilbert (Herts, S. W.)
Redmayne, M.
Watkinson, H. A.


Low, A. R. W.
Remnant, Hon. P.
Webbe, Sir H. (London &amp; Westminster)



Roberts, Maj. Peter (Heeley)
Wellwood, W.


Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)
White, Baker (Canterbury)


Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)
Robson-Brown, W.
Williams, Charles (Torquay)


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


McAdden, S. J.
Roper, Sir Harold
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)


McCallum, Major D.
Ropner, Col. L.
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.
Russell, R. S.
Wills, G.


Macdonald, Sir Peter (I. of Wight)
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


McKibbin, A. J.
Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.
Wood, Hon. R.


McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Savory, Prof. D. L.
York, C.


Maclay, Hon. John
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W. (Rochdale)



MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)
Scott, R. Donald
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R
Brigadier Mackeson and


Macpherson, Maj. Niall (Dumfries)
Shepherd, William
Mr. Butcher.


Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)





NOES


Acland, Sir Richard
Blenkinsop, A.
Cocks, F. S.


Adams, Richard
Blyton, W. R.
Coldrick, W.


Albu, A. H.
Boardman, H.
Collick, P. H.


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Bottomley, A. G.
Corbet, Mrs. Freda


Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)
Bowden, H. W.
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Bowles, F. G.
Crosland, C. A. R.


Awbery, S. S.
Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Grossman, R. H. S.


Ayles, W. H.
Brockway, A. F.
Cullen, Mrs. A.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Daines, P.


Baird, J.
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.


Balfour, A.
Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Burke, W. A.
Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)


Bartley, P.
Burton, Miss F. E.
Davies, Harold (Leek)


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)
Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)


Bence, C. R.
Callaghan, L. J.
Deer, G.


Benn, Wedgwood
Carmichael, J.
Delargy, H. J.


Benson, G.
Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Dodds, N. N.


Beswick, F.
Champion, A. J.
Donnelly, D. L.


Sevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Chapman, W. D.
Driberg, T. E. N.


Bing, G. H. C.
Chetwynd, G. R.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.


Blackburn, F.
Clunie, J.
Edelman, M.







Edwards, John (Brighouse)
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Ross, William


Edwards Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Royle, C.


Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Schofield, S. (Barnsley)


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Lewis, Arthur
Shackleton, E. A. A.


Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
Lindgren, G. S.
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Short, E. W.


Ewart, R.
Longden, Fred (Small Heath)
Shurmer, P. L. E.


Fernyhough, E.
MacColl, J. E.
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)


Field, Capt. W. J.
McGovern, J.
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Fienburgh, W.
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Finch, H. J.
McLeavy, F.
Slater, J.


Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)
McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.
Smith Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Follick, M.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)


Foot, M. M.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Snow, J. W.


Forman, J. C.
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Sorenson, R. W.


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Manuel, A. C.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Freeman, John (Watford)
Marquand, Rt. Hon H. A.
Sparks, J. A.


Freeman, Peter (Newport)
Mayhew, C. P.
Steele, T.


Gibson, C. W.
Messer, F.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Glanville, James
Mikardo, Ian
Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.


Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)
Mitchison, G. R.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.


Grey, C. F.
Monslow, W.
Strauss, Rt. Hon George (Vauxhall)


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Moody, A. S.
Stross, Dr. Barnett


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Morley, R.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. Edith


Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Swingler, S. T.


Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)
Sylvester, G. O.


Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Mort, D. L.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Hall, John (Gateshead, W.)
Moyle, A.
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Hamilton, W. W.
Mulley, F. W.
Taylor, Robert (Morpeth)


Hannan, W.
Murray, J. D.
Thomas, David (Aberdare)


Hardy, E. A.
Nally, W.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Hargreaves, A.
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)


Hastings, S.
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J.
Thurtle, Ernest


Hayman, F. H.
O'Brien, T.
Tomney, F.


Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)
Oldfield, W. H.
Usborne, H. C.


Herbison, Miss M.
Oliver, G. H.
Wallace, H. W.


Hobson, C. R.
Orbach, M.
Watkins, T. E.


Holman, P.
Oswald, T.
Weitzman, D.


Houghton, Douglas
Padley, W. E.
Wells, William (Walsall)


Hubbard, T. F.
Paget, R. T.
West, D. G.


Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John


Hughes Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Pannell, Charles
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Pargiter, G. A.
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Parker, J.
Wigg, G. E. C.


Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Paton, J.
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.


Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Pearson, A.
Wilkins, W. A.


Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Peart, T. F.
Willey, Frederick (Sunderland, N.)


Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)
Plummer, Sir Leslie
Willey, Octavius (Cleveland)


Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Poole, C. C.
Williams, David (Neath)


Janner, B.
Popplewell, E
Williams, Rev. Llewellyn (Abertillery)


Jay, D. P. T.
Porter, G.
Williams, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Don V'll'y)


Jeger, George (Goole)
Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)
Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)


Jeger, Dr. Santo (St. Pancras, S.)
Proctor, W. T.
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)
Pryde, D. J.
Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)


Johnson, James (Rugby)
Rankin, John
Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)


Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Reeves, J.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Reid, Thomas (Swindon)
Wyatt, W. L.


Kenyon, C.
Reid, William (Camlachie)
Yates, V. F.


Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Rhodes, H.
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


King, Dr. H. M.
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.



Kinley, J.
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Mr. Kenneth Robinson and




Mr. Holmes.

Amendment proposed, to leave out "29th January," and insert "22nd January" instead thereof.—[Mr. H. Morrison.]

Amendment negatived.

Resolved,
That this House, at its rising Tomorrow, do adjourn till Tuesday, 29th January.

Mr. Driberg: On a point of order. Since it is now nearly five o'clock, and in view of the fact that today's debate may range over a number of important subjects as well as defence, as has already been shown, may I through you, Mr.

Deputy-Speaker, ask the Leader of the House whether the Government propose to suspend the Rule today for at least one or two hours, as they have the right to do?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That is not a point of order for me.

Mr. Driberg: May I, through you, ask the Leader of the House whether it is proposed to suspend the Rule today in order to allow more time for these important matters to be debated?

Hon. Members: Answer.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Buchan-Hepburn.]

DEFENCE

4.50 p.m.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Winston Churchill): Frankly, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, looking around the galleries I am sorry that I cannot spy any strangers today, for I think it would have been more useful if we could have had a private talk about our common affairs. But I must also recognise that there is no lack of topics on which public statements can and should be made, and I will address myself to these aspects.
Let me, first of all, make my acknowledgements to the late Government for several most important decisions about our defence policy which they took during their six years of office and which form the foundation on which we stand today. There was the establishment of national compulsory service, now raised to two years, as a feature in our island life, and this was a measure without which our national safety could not probably have been preserved.
The Atlantic Pact and the creation of what, for short, we call N.A.T.O. was a very great event in which the Leader of the Opposition and the late Mr. Bevin played a distinguished part. The tremendous re-armament programme upon which they and the former Minister of Defence led us has enabled us to stand beyond question second only to the United States in our share of the measures upon which our hopes of a lasting peace are based.
The Conservative Party, when in opposition, gave full and constructive support to the Government of the day in all these dominant acts of national policy, and we hope we shall be able to compliment our opponents, or most of them, in their turn on their steadfast perseverance in the courses on which they launched us. These policies do not arise so much from the danger of war as from the importance of the free world creating deterrents against aggression, so the theme which His Majesty's Government will pursue and which I will illustrate this afternoon is the idea of deterrents rather than the idea of danger.
Looking back over the last few years, I cannot feel that the danger of a third war is so great now as it was at the time of the Berlin Air Lift crisis in 1948, when the Labour Government, acting in harmony with the United States, and with our full support, took great risks in a firm and resolute manner. Of course, no one can predict the future, but our feeling, on assuming responsibility, is that the deterrents have increased and that, as the deterrents have increased, the danger has become more unlikely; and we should be wise, as a House of Commons, to go on treading the same path in the immediate future with constancy, with hope and, I trust, with a broad measure of unity. That is at any rate the desire and intention of His Majesty's Government.
In saying all this, I have no wish to minimise the important differences of method and execution which exist between us in the sphere of defence. They will have to be argued out by the usual Parliamentary processes, but I should not like to dwell, as I must, on these differences—and they are neither few nor small—without setting things first of all in their broad framework of national agreement.
We must examine promptly but carefully the question of whether we are getting full value in fighting power for the immense sums of money and numbers of men provided for the three fighting Services. For the current year £420 million have been voted for the Army and over 450,000 men, soldiers, stand in uniform today. I recognise the severe strain that has been put upon the War Office by the crisis in Egypt and the Middle East, by Malaya, and by our share in the war in Korea, with its consequential reactions at Hong Kong. There is also the prime need to carry out our agreements under the North Atlantic Treaty for the reinforcement of our troops in Europe.
We found, on taking office, that important increases were contemplated both in money and manpower in the coming year and in those that followed. Before presenting such proposals to the House, we must satisfy ourselves that every possible effort has been used so to organise our forces as to procure a true economy with its twin sister, efficiency. To say such


things is to utter platitudes. To do them is to render public service. We must ask for a reasonable time to translate words into actions and in this, as in other matters, we seek to be judged by results.
In military matters, as well as in the economic and financial sphere, we are having a full, detailed statement prepared in every Department of the situation as we found it when we assumed office. In two or three years it will be possible to compare the new position with this record, and this may be of help to the House in forming its opinion of our performances, for good or for ill.
There are many things, one knows, in which improvements can be made. There are, for instance, no less than 30,000 British troops awaiting orders to move or moving to and fro by land and sea in what is called the pipe-line of our communications. The cost of this movement alone is about £7 million a year. All this is partly due to our being forced to send National Service men to the Far and Middle East, where their tour of duty is necessarily very short. It will be greatly to our advantage to have a higher proportion of young men volunteering for even three years in the Regular Army.
To this end, a scheme has been introduced by the War Office whereby a man may volunteer for a short Regular engagement of three years in the Regular Army, and thus by adding only one year to his National Service liability, he gains the advantage of the higher Regular rate of pay. First indications make it hopeful that this new offer, which was already far advanced when we took over, may prove popular and fruitful.
The Navy Estimates for the current year amount to £278 million, including £30 million for new construction, modernisation and conversion. This is an immense sum. It has also to be noted that nearly 10,000 civilians and 650 naval officers are employed in the Admiralty Departments compared with 4,000 in 1938, when the Navy was larger though, of course, much less complicated than it is at present. I would not pass from the Navy without saying that, as ever, it has played its full part under circumstances most difficult and trying in all the crises of what is called the cold war, whether in Korea or Malaya or the Middle East, and has always gained distinction.
The greatest source of concern in the Services is the slow progress made in developing the Royal Air Force, especially in the supply of the latest machines. To read the complaints that are made about the disappointments experienced in re-equipment, one would hardly believe that over £300 million is being spent this year. I must make it plain that what is being produced today is governed by decisions taken months, and in many cases years, ago. The whole system of supply and production is suffering from what might be described as acute indigestion. The sum of £4,700 million in three years as a plan represented an increased annual rate of expenditure on the Royal Air Force alone of nearly £100 million in the first year and much more in later years.
It is scarcely surprising that at many points, in research as well as production, the aircraft programme is disjointed. We must not forget that the Soviet Air Force is formidable not only in numbers but in quality. The Korean war has proved how good the Russian jet fighter, the M.I.G.15, is. We must strive to bring to our squadrons aircraft not only as good as but better than those to which they may be opposed. All this, as I have said, is a matter for active and earnest attention, and here again we must be judged by results.
Coming now to more controversial topics, I do not feel there ought to be any great difference between us about the European Army. We are, I believe, most of us agreed that there should be a European Army and that Germany must take an honourable place in it. When I proposed this at Strasbourg 18 months ago I said—perhaps I may be permitted to quote myself when I find it convenient—
I am very glad that the Germans amid their own problems have come here to share our perils and augment our strength. They ought to have been here a year ago. A year has been wasted, but still it is not too late. There is no revival of Europe, no safety or freedom for any of us except in standing together united and unflinching. I ask this Assembly to assure cur German friends that if they throw in their lot with us we shall hold their safety and freedom as sacred as our own.
This assurance has now been formally given by the Allied Governments.
I went on:
There must be created, and in the shortest possible time, a real defensive front in Europe. Great Britain and the United States must send large forces to the Continent. France must again revive her famous Army. We welcome our Italian comrades. All—Greece, Turkey, Holland, Belgium, Luxemburg, the Scandinavian States—must bear their share and do their best.
We seem to have made good progress since then. General Eisenhower is in supreme command on the Continent. All the Powers mentioned have contributed, or are contributing, or are about to contribute, contingents and many of their contingents are growing. The front is not covered yet. The potential aggressor has a vast superiority of numbers. Nevertheless, the gathering of our deterrents has been continued. As things have developed, my own ideas have always been as follows. There is the N.A.T.O. Army. Inside the N.A.T.O. Army there is the European Army, and inside the European Army there is the German Army. The European Army should be formed by all the European parties to N.A.T.O. dedicating from their own national armies their quota of divisions to the Army or Armies now under General Eisenhower's command.
At Strasbourg in 1950 the Germans did not press for a national army. On the contrary, they declared themselves ready to join a European Army without having a national army. Dr. Adenauer has renewed to us this assurance, and that is still the German position and their preference—no national army. This is a very great and helpful fact which we must all take into consideration. The size and strength of any German army, whether contingent or otherwise, and its manufacture of weapons, would in any case have to be agreed between the Allied Powers concerned. There, in short, is the policy which I have always advocated and which I am very glad to find is steadily going forward.
Difficulties have, however, arisen about the texture of the European Army. Should it be an amalgam of the European nations divested of all national characteristics and traditions, or should it be composed of elements essentially national but woven together by alliance, common organisation and unified command? On this point the discussions

have at times assumed an almost metaphysical character, and the logic of continental minds has produced a scheme for what is called the European Defence Community. That is, at least, an enlightened if not an inspiring title. The European Defence Force, which is to be a vital element in the defence of Western Europe, will be closely and effectively associated with the British Forces which constitute another element in the same defence system through their common allegiance to N.A.T.O.
The European Defence Community has not yet taken its final shape. The Paris Conference has been sitting for nine months, and it is now on the point of producing its Report. I am sorry the late Government did not send a delegation to this Conference instead of only an observer. The technical discussions have proceeded smoothly and in great detail, and at last the far-reaching political issues which have been raised and which surround the military questions have been reached. We do not know how these will be settled, and we have had no voice or share in the long argument. As soon as the Conference reaches its final conclusions we shall consider the way to establish the most effective form of association with the resultant organisations. In this way a European Army, containing a German contribution of agreed size and strength, will stand alongside the British and United States Armies in a common defensive front. That, after all, is what really matters to the life or death of the free world.
As far as Britain is concerned, we do not propose to merge in the European Army but we are already joined to it. Our troops are on the spot, and we shall do our utmost to make a worthy and effective contribution to the deterrents against aggression and to the causes of freedom and democracy which we seek to serve. These matters will, of course, require to be further discussed as the weeks pass by, and we shall probably know much more about what is the decision taken on the Continent than we can attempt to anticipate and imagine at this moment.
What I have called the most formidable step taken by the late Government was the establishment in July, 1948, of the great and ever-growing American air base in East Anglia for using the atomic


weapon against Soviet Russia should the Soviets become aggressors. As in the other great measures of national defence taken by the Labour Government, we supported this policy. I have on several occasions pointed out to the House the gravity of the late Government's decision and have quoted publicly the expression used in Soviet publications that our island had become an aircraft carrier. Certainly we must recognise that the step then taken by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition places us in the front line should there be a third World War. The measure adds to the deterrents against war, but it may throw the brunt on to us should war come.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: Mr. Sydney Silverman (Nelson and Colne) rose—

The Prime Minister: We shall not flinch from the duty which Britain has accepted, but we should never let the facts pass from our minds, so that they govern our actions.

Mr. Silverman: Mr. Silverman rose—

The Prime Minister: I was not making any attack on the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. C. R. Attlee: I am not quite sure exactly what the right hon. Gentleman means. We certainly agreed to the stationing of American bombers in this country as part of Atlantic defence, but it was never put forward specifically as a base for using the atomic bomb against Russia. We never suggested it.

The Prime Minister: That is the impression which, however mistakenly, they seem to have derived.

Mr. Attlee: The right hon. Gentleman must be very careful about this. We have had conversations. The Americans have no illusions whatever as regards our position in this matter.

The Prime Minister: I am very well informed about it, and I have not said anything this afternoon that I have not frequently said in public before. I think it is absolutely necessary that the House should realise the serious effects to which the course of events and the policy of the party opposite, to which we have supported and shared, have brought us. It is no use going on blinking at the great underlying realities of the position.

Mr. Silverman: Mr. Silverman rose—

The Prime Minister: I really would like to be allowed to make my speech. The hon. Gentleman is very skilled at interruptions of all kinds—

Mr. Silverman: I do not intend to do anything like that.

The Prime Minister: Usually interruptions ought to be limited to questions where a misunderstanding has been created.

Mr. Silverman: I think this is one.

The Prime Minister: All right.

Mr. Silverman: I only want to ask the right hon. Gentleman—and I shall quite understand it if he feels unable to answer—whether he could at this point answer the Question which stood on the Order Paper, addressed to him today, namely, whether the effect of this agreement for bombers on our shores would not have the result of removing from our control the question of whether we were to take part or not to take part in any war in which the United States happened to be involved. Does it not make us, therefore, a belligerent unless the agreement contains a provision for their removal at our request?

The Prime Minister: I thought the hon. Gentleman was going to raise a point arising from the course of the debate, but it appears that he only wants to get a Question which he put on the Paper, and which was not reached today, answered by a different method. He will see the reply to the Question when it is circulated in the ordinary course.
This brings me to the strength of the Forces we have in this country, as I found them on becoming responsible. Practically all our Regular formations have been sent to the Army in Europe or are engaged in distant theatres. The facts are, of course, already known to foreign countries, and the Communists have particular advantages in gathering information in many countries.
I have spoken before of the danger of paratroop descents on a considerable scale, and everything I have learned since assuming office convinces me of the need to accumulate deterrents against this particular form of attack, for this reason.


We have taken the first steps to re-establish the network of the Home Guard units throughout the country, and we have already permitted the raising of a proportion of the Home Guard in the southeastern part of England. The Royal Observer Corps is being strengthened, and we have decided to set up and begin the recruiting next year of a Royal Naval mine-watching organisation.
Moreover, I have given directions that the numerous Regular military establishments in this country which contain a very large number of men—nearly 250,000—the training schools, depots and other units, should acquire an immediate combatant value. They must be armed and ready to defend themselves, and not only themselves, in an emergency. Arrangements are being made for their use away from their local centres, as far as other reasons and mobility permits. It is a mistake to keep so many thousands of our men in uniform without their playing a direct part in our safety.
These measures are not particularly costly. The cost is the men, and here again we are in the field of deterrents. Our country should suggest to the mind of a potential paratrooper the back of a hedgehog rather than the paunch of a rabbit. We shall have next year to repeat the process adopted last year by our predecessors of calling up a proportion of the Z reservists in order to enable a number of Territorial divisions, antiaircraft and other specialist units to be assembled and exercised. The results were more valuable than I had expected from such a very short period of effective training. At any rate, there was the sense of assembly and incorporation in the regimental units.
Thanks to the National Service Measures of the late Government we have a reserve of trained manhood, now beginning to flow from two years' service in the Army, of a quality and character superior to anything we have ever had before in time of peace. This enables us to raise our Territorial divisions on mobilisation far more quickly and to a quality far in advance of anything that was previously possible in former periods. The reserve is only just beginning to come to us in strength, and we should indeed be failing in our duty if we did not take the necessary and consequential

steps to secure full value in deterrent resources from the cost and sacrifice which two years' compulsory service involves.
Growth and efficiency of the Territorial Army and of its speedy mobilisation in an emergency is essential to repair the inroads upon our strategic resources from which we suffer today. The House will no doubt wish to know more precisely the detailed conditions of the call-up. The Government proposes that the provisions of the Reserve and Auxiliary Forces (Training) Act, 1951, should be applied again in 1952, and the necessary Affirmative Resolution will be introduced immediately after the Recess.

Mr. E. Shinwell: Can the right hon. Gentleman say for how long?

The Prime Minister: Just a little patience, and the right hon. Gentleman's natural interest will be satisfied.
In the case of the Army, this training will be on the same lines as it was this year, and it will involve the recall for 15 days' training of up to 250,000 men, mainly Z reservists. I agree I wish it could be longer than 15 days. Another three or four working days would add greatly to the value of it, without any marked addition to the cost. Then there is the effect that might be produced upon the permanent cadres of the Territorial volunteers, to whom we already owe so much. I did not appreciate that fact fully, but I do now and I have to consider it. I wish indeed that we could have a longer period for considering the cost involved, but I think it would be imprudent at this stage to run the risk of making the voluntary service which the Territorial Army bears so heavy a burden. The majority of the men will be trained in the units which they will attend in the event of an emergency, and the remainder, including up to 3,000 officers and certain specialists, will undergo particular courses of refresher training.
The Royal Air Force will be calling up 5,500 men of their equivalent class "G" reserve. The Royal Navy will continue the call-up of members of the Royal Fleet Reserves for service on a small scale.
Now I come to the other side. I have been dealing with the personnel aspects, and I come now to the other side of the


re-armament plans, namely, the manufacture in this country of munitions and military supplies of all kinds. I found on taking over that, under the increased programme of £4,700 million, we were committed to an expenditure in the present year of up to £1,250 million, and, in 1952–53, on the basis of 1950 prices, which have since been exceeded, to a further £1,500 million.
We shall not, however, succeed in spending the £1,250 million this year, and some of the late Government's programme must necessarily roll forward into a future year. This point was, I believe, made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) after his resignation. I do not reproach the late Government on this score. They tried their best to carry out what they had declared was necessary for our safety. I have never yet seen a munitions programme—and I have seen several—which did not lag behind the plans. This will, of course, be helpful to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his special problems.
We must, however, be careful to distinguish between reductions in expenditure which are due to bona fide economies, or to improved methods of using available forces, and those reductions which merely push payments forward to a later date. A very careful scrutiny is being made over the whole field of this immense new re-armament programme of the late Government in all its main aspects, and many of these items will be reviewed in the light of changing events.
This process must be highly selective, so that we get first what we need most and in order that bottle-necks of any kind are eliminated. It is perfectly clear that, in the sphere of the material needs, the claims of the Royal Air Force must have first and special emphasis and priority. This will be made fully effective in any rearrangement of the programme upon which we may decide.
I have been trying to show—

Mr. Aneurin Bevan: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way? He has made an exceedingly important statement, the effect of which, as I understand it, is that it will not be found possible to spend the £4,700 million in the three years. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] That

is the effect of his statement. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] It is really no use his trying to conceal this intention behind a mass of verbiage. If this first programme is not to be accomplished, then the second year's programme and the arrears of the first year's programme will not be carried out, unless the period is more than three years. Am I, therefore, to understand that the Government has abandoned the three year period and has added some unknown period to the length of the rearmament programme?

The Prime Minister: As events develop, the right hon. Gentleman will no doubt watch them with attention, and the discussions which, from time to time, he will have with his former colleagues will no doubt be both instructive and animated on both sides. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] I am not really wishing to embark on a debate with the right hon. Gentleman. I was giving him an honourable mention in despatches for having, by accident—

Mr. Bevan: Mr. Bevan rose—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew): If the Prime Minister does not give way, hon. and right hon. Gentlemen must resume their seats.

The Prime Minister: I will give way in a moment. I was giving the right hon. Gentleman an honourable mention for having, it appears by accident, perhaps not from the best of motives, happened to be right.

Mr. Bevan: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, when the statement on rearmament was made in the House of Commons by myself when Minister of Labour, I said, and the Prime Minister also said, that it may not be found possible, because of the shortage of raw materials and the lack of machine tools, to carry out the £4,700 million programme. The right hon. Gentleman ought to try to be honest about this programme. Now, what period has he, in fact, substituted for the three years?

The Prime Minister: We shall get on as best we can. We shall do our best, but I should be wrong not to warn the House that there will be a lag, as there has been in all the munitions programmes


which I have ever seen or with which I have been connected.
So far, I have been endeavouring to allay controversy and hasty feelings in every direction. I have, indeed, paid many compliments to the Front Bench opposite and some other quarters and so on, but now I come to two issues which are controversial in this House.
Great Britain requires a pool of three million or four million rifles—that is what I am coming to—with the proportionate ammunition and supply arrangements. At the end of the war, we had over five million rifles; we have got less than half of that now. The causes for this are being examined. The Army of a major Power must live under a large body of rifles, because exceptional needs cannot be foreseen and the wastage of rifles in war is very high. The only other large pools in the United Nations are the United States, Canada and France.
Our annual rate of rifle production is not large, nor is it easily expanded. In 1941, for instance, after two years of war and bombing, we had only managed to make about 200,000 rifles. The changeover from one pattern of rifle to another must, therefore, be a very lengthy process, which could not be even partially effective in under six or seven years. During this period, an additional burden would be placed on our resources of labour and materials, already so heavily strained, if there were two kinds of rifles in the British Forces. We cannot abandon the manufacture of one kind until we have enough to get on with of the other.
A decision to re-arm with the new rifle is one of high policy, involving the world situation and the position of our Allies. Standardisation, not only of rifles, but of other weapons, must be regarded as a cardinal principle and aim among the Atlantic Powers. It can, of course, only be attained gradually. A marked departure from this principle in, say, small arms would prolong for many years the existing inconvenient differences of weapons, bore and ammunition. Every effort should therefore be made, in changes which can take place only so very slowly, to achieve agreement and convergence of thought on new types.
Now I come to the proposed new British.280 rifle, which can only be

rightly considered in the setting I have described. It may well be that we have now the best rifle and ammunition yet made. The hon. Member for Aston (Mr. Wyatt) urged me to go and see it for myself. I can assure him I followed his request, and I have had the opportunity of firing both the British and American weapons. I do not pose as a technical expert in these matters at all, but I will say that these are matters of technical dispute. Great credit in any case is due to the designers and all concerned with the creation of this weapon and also with the cartridge. I never argued against the quality of the rifle.
We have at present 20 of these rifles, not 20,000, and if the re-tooling, etc. of our factories is carried out on the plans proposed by the late Government we could begin production in 1953, and by the end of 1954 we should be producing at the rate of about 100,000 a year. But the pool we should like to swim in would be over 2 million. This production would, at a time when we are so short of skilled labour, be additional, as I have just pointed out, to the indispensable maintenance of the.303 as the only weapon we can have in large numbers for a long time.

Mr. Shinwell: As a point of elucidation, when the right hon. Gentleman refers to the.303, does he mean the existing American rifle, or the proposed one?

The Prime Minister: I was speaking of the British.303. The American is called a.300. It is not exactly that, but it is called that. We cannot leave our pool and cease to replenish that pool until we have got something very considerable to go to. Therefore, we have to keep the two together.
The Americans are also seeking a replacement for their present Garand rifle, of which they have a large pool. They also seek for an improvement in the cartridge, which again entails great changes in the design. But none of these changes will affect the military position substantially in the next three or four years. They are long-term projects, and a further effort should be made to secure their harmonious evolution among allies and thus prevent new rifts of organisation being opened up in the common front, and especially between Britain and


Canada who, I hope, will move in unity in standardisation. It is in the light of these considerations that a final decision should not be taken hastily. Indeed, I think it is our duty on both sides of the Atlantic to make new efforts to harmonise our long-term policy, and I propose to persevere in this and I trust that we may reach a good decision.

Mr. Woodrow Wyatt: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, while this decision is being made, he is now going to stop the preparations which are being made to put the.280 rifle into production or not, because if a final decision is made that we should go ahead with it, it is very important not to stop all the preparatory work now going on?

The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman had followed what I said he would have noted that I pointed out that production would not begin until the end of 1953 and that it would not reach 100,000 a year until the end of 1954. Obviously, a few months one way or another in trying to reach a general agreement would not be wasted. I do not propose at this moment to go forward with the re-tooling until we have had some further talks about it and to see more surely where we stand.

Mr. Shinwell: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that if we do not proceed to production of the new rifle and ammunition at a fairly early stage, we have either to rely on the existing British rifle and go on increasing production of it—a rifle which is now regarded as out of date—or accept the existing American pattern which is regarded by them as being out of date?

The Prime Minister: I was not thinking of accepting the existing American pattern at all, but we have to go on with our existing rifle until we reach a conclusion about a new rifle, which I hope may be reached with common agreement between all the Powers concerned. At any rate, I would not give that up for the sake of beginning two or three months earlier. I am not at all sure it is in our interest to embark single-handed on a lonely venture, even if that rifle is better than others put before us. At any rate, this is not a matter which can be said to be urgent as it will not affect

our position for a good many years to come.
I now come to another controversial matter. I am not at present, as the House knows, convinced of the need for a Supreme Commander in the Atlantic. The question of the nationality of the commander is secondary once the need is proved. I should have thought that the method which was successful during our six years of struggle with the U-boats in the last war, with any improvements which experience may suggest, would have sufficed.
The essence is that the British Admiralty should have complete control of direction of the reception end of trans-Atlantic convoys and shipping. This ought to be managed by the First Sea Lord through his handling machine at Liverpool. The integrity of the management from hour to hour at the reception end is the key to the whole process by which any trans-Atlantic or British Armies can be landed or maintained in Western Europe. It is also the foundation of the process by which 50 million people in the British Isles have been kept alive in the teeth of the U-boat and the mining menace.
It is not a question of national pride, but a question of a good working arrangement on which victory and also life would in certain circumstances depend. As long as complete control of the approaches and reception end is exercised by the Admiralty from this small island all the rest of the problems can be solved. But conflict or duality of control on the command level or between a Supreme Commander and the Admiralty might very well be injurious. The British Admiralty and the United States and Canadian naval chiefs should work together as they always did, and any question of transference of Forces which could not be settled between the respective Admiralties could be adjusted, as they always were, at a higher level.
I am very glad that the United States should come as far east as they propose provided that the management of the reception end is unimpaired. It does not seem also—but this is a technical point—that the definition of coastal waters around Great Britain which has been agreed upon is satisfactory. The 100-fathom limit should be examined as an alternative. There should, moreover, of


course, be no question of treating the Bay of Biscay differently from any other part of the approaches to this island or Western Europe.
The problem must be solved as a whole, and I have no doubt it can be by further friendly discussions. It is certainly not solved now. I hope that we may reach some conclusions which will, without offending national pride on either side of the Atlantic, have the effect of enabling us to do the work, for which we have unequalled experience and expert knowledge, of bringing safely in to the Western shores the aid and supplies that come from across the Atlantic Ocean.
There are only one or two points to which I must refer. Statements have appeared in the Press suggesting that we contemplate widespread departures in the policy of manufacturing atomic bombs. Two years ago I commented unfavourably on the fact that the Socialist Government had not been able to make a specimen atomic bomb although they had been trying to do so for four years. When we came into office, we found that a great deal of work had been done, not only on making the crucial materials required for making atomic bombs, but in preparing to manufacture these weapons. I think the House ought to know about that. Considerable if slow progress has been made.
The House will realise that this is not the moment to discuss the British research and manufacture of atomic bombs in detail. All that I will say is that we have taken over the very costly production of the Socialist Government. We have not decided on any important change in policy or principle. We hope, however, in this as in other matters, by different methods of organisation and administration to effect some improvements, and there are certain aspects of this delicate subject which I hope we may clarify by discussions with the United States authorities.
Dull tragedy rolls forward in Malaya. The first thought of the Secretary of State for the Colonies on being appointed was to go to Malaya, the black spot in his Department. No decision can be taken until after his return. It is becoming painfully evident that there must be one mind with effective power over the

administration in all its branches, including particularly the military and the police.
Some brutal statistics may in the meanwhile be presented to the House. We have in Malaya over 25,000 British troops, over 10,000 Gurkhas, and over 7,000 other soldiers. Added to this there are 60,000 local police in different stages of armament and many part-time auxiliaries. Thus the whole amounts to over 100,000 men employed in a most costly manner. The total expense of the Fighting Forces is nearly £50 million a year, quite apart from any other emergency expenses falling upon the Malayan Government.
We are also suffering heavy loss in the restriction through terrorism of our tin mines and rubber plantations. It is said that the bandits, or whatever they should be called, number 3,000 to 5,000, and I do not suppose that their maintenance cost is comparably at all heavy. Certainly it seems some improvement should be made in this theatre of tragedy and waste, but we had better wait before debating the subject until the Secretary of State comes home when we can weigh and measure the report which he will make.
I have nothing to add to the statements which have been made to the House about the position in Egypt and Korea. In Korea we all hope that the armistice negotiations will reach agreement and that this agreement will lead to a wider settlement in the country. In Egypt and the Suez Canal we stand by the Four Power proposals for the organisation of the defence of the Middle East and the safeguarding of the international waterway, and we hope eventually to associate the other countries in the area with the Four Powers in their joint task.
In the meanwhile we shall do our duty in accordance with our Treaty rights in the Canal Zone, and we hope for an increasing measure of aid from the Egyptian Government in preventing mob violence and other forms of lawless and murderous attack. We believe our Forces in the Canal Zone, or within reach of it, are strong enough for any work they may have to do. We welcome the fact that good relations prevail between them and the Egyptian Army. Everyone would like to see a speedy and friendly settlement, but there are some problems in


which time is a potent factor. We certainly propose to use it with patience as well as with firmness.
I have now covered, so far as I wish to at the moment, the immense variety of events in the world-wide scene which spreads arounds us. I have tried to do justice to those large issues in which we are in agreement with the policy pursued by the late Government. I have also tried to emphasise the urgent need of a complete and searching examination and review and, where necessary, the recasting of methods by which right decisions in major policy have been impaired by wrong methods or faulty execution.
The process of examining the enormous expenditure on defence in all its forms in order while doing our duty to spend this money and spend the rest more effectively will continue without rest or pause until we meet again. I hope then, with the help of the Ministers responsible for the Service Departments, to be able to make a more precise and definite statement than it is possible for me to do after only six weeks examination of this immense and tangled field.

5.48 p.m.

Mr. C. R. Attlee: I am sure that the House has listened to the Prime Minister's review with very great interest. I fortified myself before this debate by looking back at some of our previous debates. In particular, I read the speeches made by the right hon. Gentleman when in Opposition. I am bound to say that when I read his last speech I came to the conclusion that that speech was influenced by what he has so often described as "the Election atmosphere." Most of the points made were party points, and I found it was not worth while fortifying myself with that report before coming here for this debate.
I am amply confirmed in my judgment by the right hon. Gentleman's speech today. When one considers the vast amount of criticism hurled against us from the benches opposite during all these years and then listens to the statements made, one can really draw a just conclusion as to how much of substance there was in that attack which was made on the last Government and particularly on some of my right hon. Friends.
We have agreed, in turn, that one had to employ here the method of deterrence.

The dangers during these years have been very acute and we had to take very heavy risks, as at the time of the Berlin air-lift I am glad to see that the broad lines of policy which we followed are now approved—the establishment of National Service, re-armament and the rest. What it comes down to now is that the right hon. Gentleman, after having been in office a little while, is dealing with facts and not with fancies.
Only one thing remains of all the complaints and that is the old one—that we must have value for money. We are just in the same position as we always were before—a total inability to say where there was waste and how much more value will now be got for the money expended. I am quite sure that the more the right hon. Gentleman looks into these matters and realises the difference in cost today from what it used to be—the difference not only in the cost of materials, but in the pay of our troops and of all our Services—he will realise that the scope for these large economics is not very great.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the pipe-line. It is a fact that one does have a number of people in transition between the home front and a particular theatre either of hot or cold war; and it is a fact that short service means a good deal of extra transit. It is also necessitated by greater need for leave when operating in very difficult countries such as Malaya and Korea and the rest.
The right hon. Gentleman spoke of the slow progress in the air. No one knows better than he does how heart-breaking are the delays in the production of aircraft. They are called teething troubles. One gets an aircraft and one thinks it is going ahead; trials are made and one thinks one is going to have delivery but in my experience, not only over the last six years but in the five years before that, there are always long delays. We were attacked on the grounds that we did not make greater provision of aircraft, but if we had produced more they would have been obsolete and obsolescent aircraft. We were criticised for not having enough aircraft.
The point there is that in this competition in the air one State is always tending to get ahead of the other. There always comes a point, as, indeed, there is at the moment with regard to the Soviet M.I.G., when someone has an advantage.


In a short time we shall be having the advantage, but it would have been very short-sighted if we had tried to step up all our squadrons to full strength by producing obsolete or obsolescent aircraft and not going in for those of higher quality. That applies to a large extent to all weapons, and it is never any good just judging the position at one particular moment. One has to see what has been the course of past production and what is to be the course of future production.
I was interested in the right hon. Gentleman's statement on the European Army, because it has now come down much more to practical politics from the rather exaggerated and romantic statements that were made at the beginning. I notice that there has dropped out from his statement, what I think I saw in his previous speech, that it was necessary that we, too, should make a contribution actually in the European Army. I noticed, too, that the European Minister of Defence had disappeared. Well, I think that is all to the good.
We all agree that German re-armament is a very, very difficult subject. On the one hand, it is quite impossible to leave a vacuum in eastern Europe. [HON. MEMBERS: "Western."] The eastern part of western Europe or central Europe if hon. Members like—anyway, in Western Germany. To leave a vacuum there would be dangerous. The composition of a European Army obviously required a very great deal of discussion as to whether it was practical or not.
The right hon. Gentleman rather deplored that we did not have people taking part in it. I disagree. I think that in these things it is much better to let the parties concerned thrash the thing out; otherwise, there is a tendency to think that we should step forward and take the thing over ourselves. It is much better that we should be associated. I think a European Army is the best and safest way in which one can secure a contribution to German defence without danger of the rise once more of German militarism.
There is the difficulty, and I am sure the right hon. Gentleman has encountered it, of the higher political direction in N.A.T.O. In the last war it was very largely a question of the direction being taken between this country and the

United States of America. It is now a question of direction in connection with some twelve States, and may be more, and that makes it extraordinarily difficult. Either one gets an extremely clumsy machine or one gets a machine in which some important States feel that they are not adequately represented. I am quite sure that a lot more work will have to be done on this subject.
The right hon. Gentleman spoke about the American air bases. We have always considered that as an essential part of the defence of Europe and that if we were to have the American Forces co-operating with the European Forces there ought to be bases and that those bases should be in this country and in other countries. I never regarded this base specifically as a base from which an atom attack would be launched against the U.S.S.R. Obviously, there are bases where one would have to consider what attacks would be made, but we have never taken the line that this country was an air base to be used by the United States of America. We have always taken the line that we must hold ourselves free in this position to act with our Allies and that any question of the use of this base is for ourselves and for decision jointly with our American Allies. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman takes the same position on that.
The right hon. Gentleman talked about the hedgehog and the rabbit. The hedgehog, of course, reminds us of a creature that is awaiting attack. Our view has always been that our deterrents must be designed to keep the enemy as far away from these shores as possible, and I do not think that one wants to get this country into a kind of hedgehog attitude in which we put an immense amount of our resources into the passive defence of these islands. The danger there is to suggest to other countries that we are indifferent to their fate.
Therefore, I think that the need is to strengthen our defences on the further boundaries of the countries of freedom, and, from my point of view, I consider that the Home Guard proposal was out of time just now—I shall not repeat the arguments we have already used about that—because I do not believe that that is really facing up to the right strategy—which is the strengthening of the front in Europe. It is really very largely a question of priorities.
I was glad that the right hon. Gentleman paid his tribute to the efficiency of the Territorial Army and also to the effectiveness of the call-up for 15 days. It is very gratifying, because I remember so many pundits among hon. Members opposite saying that it was perfectly hopeless, that 15 days were no use, and that the whole thing was no good, and we were attacked in the Press in every way. We acted, of course, on very good military advice—I expect it was the same advice upon which the right hon. Gentleman is now acting—and it turns out that that military advice was correct. I am glad to see that here, as in so many things, the right hon. Gentleman is falling in behind us. It rather suggests that a good deal of that criticism was based perhaps not entirely on military experience but on, as the right hon. Gentleman said, the electoral atmosphere.
With regard to manufactures, we put out a programme which was expressed in terms of money. That was the only way we could very well put out a complicated programme dealing with the rearming of a Navy, an Army and an Air Force. We put it out as a programme to be worked over, and completed, if possible, within three years. The right hon. Gentleman said that no one who has had any experience ever expects that there will not be something in the nature of a lag. When I made a statement in the House I said that it depended very largely on factors such as the availability of machine tools, raw materials and the rest, and, quite honestly, no one could pin oneself down and say that one was prepared to spend exactly a certain amount this year or next year or that the completion would be exactly at a certain time.
Naturally, these things have to roll on and are affected by circumstances; but if we want to have a plan of this kind—a connected plan for the whole Services—worked out over a period of years, we must obviously have some definite propositions which are expressed in terms of money and are worked out. No one suggests that there would not be modifications or that they would not be influenced by various factors.
I am all for having a very careful scrutiny made all the time to try to get the greatest possible efficiency and economy in production. One has to

watch, as we have been watching, all the time. I doubt whether we have had very much credit for it during the six and a half years we have been in office, in which we had to face an extremely difficult situation. We always had to try to strike a balance between what was absolutely essential for the maintenance of the economy of this country and what was essential for its defence.
That is a point that we have had to stress here at home and also in our discussions whether on the Continent or with our American Allies. I am quite sure that when the right hon. Gentleman looks at the contributions which have been made to building up the strength of the Atlantic community he will find that this country has gone further to fulfil its obligations than any other country.
I agree with what he said with regard to the priority of materials for the Air Force. The other point which he thought was one of great controversy was that of the pool of rifles. We want to get the best rifle, and, as in the question of commands, I do not think we want to stand necessarily on the claims of nationality. I believe that the experts agree that the British rifle is the best, and we should do all we can to get it adopted, but I hope that we are not going to delay getting on with the production of the best rifle by having a long controversy as to which is the best—long delays may run very far—because we have already taken steps towards production.
It is all very well for the right hon. Gentleman to say that a few months do not make much difference, but a "few months" tend to drag on and we may soon find that we are dragging behind again. These lags are so often due to controversies at the start as to what is the absolute best. I say, "May the best rifle win," and I have complete confidence that in an impartial survey the British rifle will win. If others have got a better one, well, let us have it.
The right hon. Gentleman also talked about this subject of controversy over the Supreme Commander in the Atlantic. In the arrangements we made everything with regard to the preservation of the necessary rights of this country at the reception end was arranged, certainly to the satisfaction of our naval advisers. We took full tactical advice on this. There


was no over-riding of the experts by inexpert Ministers. We acted on the best advice we could get from our naval advisers, and we take full responsibility for that advice. In my view—certainly in their view—what the right hon. Gentleman demands is that we should have control over our own coasts and of the reception end. I believe that was amply secured in the arrangements. The question of a Supreme Commander of the Atlantic is, perhaps, not so vital; it is a matter which can be worked out.
I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman acknowledged at last that we had not done nothing in regard to the atomic weapon. We have done a very great deal. The right hon. Gentleman must now realise that this goes back a very long time and that all the work was done over in America and not over here and we had to build up again from the start. That has been an extremely difficult thing, and I think a very great deal of credit is due to our scientists.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned Malaya. It is a very difficult problem. It is quite true that there are only 5,000 or 6,000 of these people, but they are reinforced from time to time, and it is very difficulty country. There is plenty of experience in history of quite a few guerillas pinning down large numbers of troops. The Briggs Plan has been put in force, but it has not been entirely successful yet. That kind of plan will have to be worked out, but I do not see a very quick or easy solution.
It is not purely a military solution which must be sought, because in the military work we have also to keep the people with us, whether they are Malays, Indians or Chinese. There are a limited number of Indians. I believe the great bulk of the Chinese, where they are not terrorised, would like to stand in on our side, but they are often frightened; the Malays, also. It is essential—I emphasise this—that clear statements should be made about why we are in Malaya and what is the future of the Malayan people.
When I made a statement in this House—it was a quite definite statement—about our staying in Malaya, I was subjected to constant attacks by the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Gammans). About every other week he wanted me to say it again. He said that the people

in Malaya did not understand unless we spoke very clearly. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman made a very clear statement yesterday. Perhaps it would be as well if he made a very categorical and clear statement so that it may be understood by the Malays, the Chinese and the Indians.
The only other point I have to make is with regard to the organisation of defence. The right hon. Gentleman has taken on the task of being Minister of Defence as well as Prime Minister. I think he has found that it is a heavy job, because in all this international work on N.A.T.O. and the rest the Minister of Defence must meet his opposite numbers and must take a heavy share of the work. There is also the vital point of harmonising the plans of the three Services. I believe that has been done to a very great extent by the good work by the Chiefs of Staff and also by the organisation of the Ministry of Defence, but it may be that the right hon. Gentleman may find, after a bit, that he wants someone to take on the Ministry of Defence. I noticed some speculation in the Sunday papers about this. I do not read the Sunday papers a great deal. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Well, not all of them.

The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Mr. Nigel Birch): "Reynolds News" anyhow!

Mr. Attlee: No, the one I was reading was the "Observer." The "Observer" suggested that during the Recess the right hon. Gentleman would be handing on his responsibilities as Minister of Defence to someone else, and it proceeded to suggest a very distinguished soldier, for whom we all have the highest respect.
I would merely say that I think it would be a great mistake, if the right hon. Gentleman had such intentions in mind, to put in a distinguished soldier, sailor or airman as Minister of Defence, That is not because I think they could not do the job or that I have any objection to employing them, but because in this task it is quite unfair to the Chiefs of Staff to put over them someone who has a big military reputation. It makes it extremely difficult for them, and for the Government on whose advice they depend, to have two sources of technical advice.
If we have Chiefs of Staff, we must trust our Chiefs of Staff; we must not set up a military person above them. If that is dangerous when we are dealing with this country alone, it is still more dangerous and difficult to have Ministers of Defence who have collectively to control organisations like that of the defence of Europe, in which distinguished soldiers who are international servants have to act under them. They must have political guidance, but that political guidance must be by politicians and not by other soldiers, sailors or airmen.
I think it worth while, therefore, because one never knows whether the "Observer" may not be right. They are right sometimes. I would say that in my view such a decision would be a mistake. I think it would be contrary to the general position we have had in this country with civilians at the head of the Service Ministers. I do not think the experience we have had in the past, of distinguished soldiers or sailors being put there, have been happy ones, and if we have another Minister of Defence then that Minister should be in the House of Commons.
I have not made a party speech on this subject of defence. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] No, I have not, although I have had a considerable amount of provocation. I could easily have dealt with hon. Members opposite on what they have said in the past. But I have taken the line—and I believe in the line—that the question of defence should be dealt with on its merits by the whole House and that we should endeavour to get the greatest amount of unity in the country behind it. If I had come here to make party points, and had come with the volumes of HANSARD for a few years past, I could have quoted remarks by hon. Members opposite and could have made a good many party points.

6.17 p.m.

Mr. Frederick Gough: I am sure that the Leader of the Opposition will forgive me if I do not follow him very closely, but for me today is a very important occasion. For a very large number of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen, it is an experience—perhaps not a very agreeable experience—but an experience which, by now, they have relegated to the dim recesses of the memory:

but for me it is a stark reality, and I am very appreciative of and grateful for the indulgence which is customarily given on an occasion such as this when an hon. Member makes his first address to this august House.
If I may, I want to confine my remarks this evening to a problem which is fundamental to any discussion or debate on defence, and that is the problem of manpower; or perhaps I should put it, the proper use of the manpower that is available. It would be wrong to say that this is in any way a new or a novel problem. It is a problem which has beset the rulers of this country throughout our history, from the day when King Harold was unable to muster sufficient reserves to hurl the Norman invaders back into the sea—which, happily, has turned out rather well for us.
From that day, right through our history, our leaders have had to grapple with this question of numerical inferiority, and they have always had to overcome it by novel means. One's mind goes immediately to Drake's fire-ships, which were a classic example of a victory over an enemy in overwhelming force, and on down the pages of history until we come to the Battle of Britain, when we were enjoined, if I might paraphrase the words of the famous hymn, to
Look upward to the skies,
Where such a light affliction had gained so great a prize.
It is important for us to realise that our danger lies, unfortunately, in a strange disinclination to learn from our lessons of the past, and, also unfortunately, we seem to have an unhealthy reputation for losing every battle except the last. With the advance of science and with the shattering effect of modern weapons, it is quite possible that, next time, the first battle may even be the last; and it would be well for us, therefore, to be ready to win it. I believe that the only way in which we can overcome this numerical disability is to remember that mobility for us is one of the most important of the principles of war.
I am reminded of the words of a well-known American general in the American Civil War, who said:
The man who wins the battle is the man who gits thar fustest with the mostest men
We nearly lost the Second World War by ignoring that advice and by failing,


in the intervening years, to realise the revolutionary effect of the armoured fighting vehicle on modern warfare. I wonder whether we are, and I hope we are not, once again disregarding our past lessons.
The one thing which emerged more than anything else out of the Second World War was the formation and development of airborne Forces. Knowing and realising the difficulties of the Royal Air Force in this question of air potential, it nevertheless seems to me to be something of a tragedy that our Regular airborne Forces have had to be so greatly reduced during the past six years. I sometimes wonder whether their value in peace-time has been fully realised and whether it is appreciated how valuable they could have been during these six years.
I believe that if we had retained one or two airborne divisions, with the appropriate air Forces and that if we had been able to keep them stationed in this country, they could perhaps have made it very much easier for us to garrison Germany. I also wonder whether the Beige of Berlin would have taken place had we been able to land a division of airborne troops at the psychological moment.
There must have been tactical reasons for the decision, but I believe it was a mistake to send our only parachute brigade to Cyprus and to the Suez Canal Zone, and I hope their return to this country will be expedited. With all those difficulties, I believe it would be a great move for us to build up, as a highly mobile strategic weapon, something in the nature of one airborne division. From the point of view of Imperial defence it might well be worth while, in addition, to try to persuade certain of the Dominion Governments each to form and to build up a similar airborne division.
Had we possessed such an Imperial strategic reserve, what a great difference it would have made to us in helping the United Nations in Korea. Indeed, when one looks at our almost world-wide commitments, one realises what a great value it would be if, in company and in consort with the other Dominions, we were able very quickly to form a strategic reserve of fine troops, well trained, of that nature.
Another important point on the manpower question is what I should like to describe as the build-up. We all know that for every man in the fighting line there must be a very large number of men behind him. It may be my simple nature, but it seems strange to me that, with the fighting strength of the three Services very low at the moment—as is accepted on all sides—their staffs and headquarters, and, indeed, their Ministries, do not seem to have shrunk in proportion. I was very glad indeed to hear my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence say that that matter was receiving very serious consideration.
A third point I should like to mention concerns the subject of discipline and, I would say, discipline as related to manpower. This is no criticism. I believe that discipline in our three Services is high and, as a result of it, their morale is high, too. But I also believe that it is agreed and accepted on all sides of the House that enlightened discipline is essential in all the Armed Forces of the Crown, because good discipline means low casualties, and just as self-control in the individual brings self-respect, so discipline in a unit brings efficiency and esprit de corps to any fighting formation. Time and time again the discipline of our Armed Forces has brought them, victoriously and successfully through what have appeared by every ordinary yardstick to be hopeless situations. In terms of manpower that seems to me to prove a most important thing—that quality is worth so very much more than quantity.
In conclusion, I would say this. Sir William Napier wrote of the strength and the majesty with which the British soldier fights. It is those qualities which have been displayed in the past and which have made it possible for us to meet in safety here tonight, and I feel we should all see that not only now but in the future the same high standards are cherished and maintained, for only thus can we hope to avert another challenge to our existence.

6.26 p.m.

Mr. Woodrow Wyatt: I am sure that the whole House would like me to congratulate, on their behalf, the hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Gough) on his excellent maiden speech. He spoke with great sincerity and with much felicity of phrase, as one would expect from someone who has


succeeded Lord Winterton, the former Father of the House. I hope that his excursions into our debates in future will be as many and varied as those of his predecessor.
I want to make one or two comments about some of the things which the Prime Minister said this afternoon. There were one or two implied criticisms, perhaps, of the previous Administration. For instance, there was his reference to the 30,000 troops in the pipe-line and he seemed to suggest that if we had managed things better those 30,000 troops would not be in the pipe-line. I hope the Secretary of State, who I believe is to wind up the debate, will concede at once that unless we cut out leave or alter the whole leave system in the Army, it is quite impossible to reduce that number in the pipe-line except over a very long period, possibly by changing the terms of service in the Army. It was, therefore, not faulty administration which caused those 30,000 to be in the pipe-line.
Again, when the time comes for the Secretary of State to put forward his new proposals for Service engagements—in the Annual Army Bill—I hope it will be admitted that those arrangements were not made by himself or the present Government, but by his predecessors in office. They are of far-reaching character and will, I hope, have a great effect upon recruiting to the Army, but they will be nothing whatever to do with the present Government; they were devised by the previous Government.

The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Antony Head): We have thought of some more since then.

Mr. Wyatt: They will have to be very good to be better than ours.
I should also like to refer to the.280 rifle. The Prime Minister was kind enough to say that he had accepted one request of mine, which was that he should look at the rifle. Apparently that was something which had not occurred to him before I made the suggestion. This was a great advance on his rather backward thinking on this subject. Now, having looked at the rifle, I hope he will look into the figures which he gave about the potential production of this rifle. I hope he will look into them when the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply is present, because I am quite sure that it would be possible to produce

this rifle in larger quantities earlier than the Prime Minister said, if sufficient energy were put behind it.
I do not believe, particularly now we have a bright, new Conservative Administration, which is going to get on with the job very much more rapidly than we did—or so they say—that it should take anywhere near as long as until 1953 to get the necessary re-tooling done to put this rifle into production. Indeed, I think it could be done by the end of next year, if it were only tackled with some energy; and we could be getting quite large numbers of these rifles very much earlier than was suggested.
I hope we shall not have, during the coming months or even years, attempts to cover any possible cuts in the armament programme by suggestions that these are only economies made out of wasteful and extravagant methods used by the Labour Government in their re-armament programme, because any cuts on the figures which we announced last January will not be due to cutting out wasteful methods at all, but because, as I am sure the right hon. Gentleman has already found out during the last few weeks, there is not any great scope for cutting out wasteful administration in the three Services or in the procurement of these weapons.
I am sure we would all agree that the economic difficulties which face us have the effect of making us think of what possibilities there may be of cutting down our re-armament programme. We should all, naturally, rather cut it than make any severe inroads into our standard of living, but I think we want to proceed very cautiously along this path, because we must all remember that the £4,700 million programme was based on a military need. It is not merely an addendum to everything else done in our economic life. It is based on a definite military need, designed to produce a balanced Force as our part of Western European defence by 1954, and we have to keep that in mind when we are considering any possibilities of slowing down the programme. I think it will be agreed that this programme was, in fact, less than the soldiers wanted, but the minimum that the politicians thought was necessary for our safety, and basically the conditions which demanded that programme have not changed a great deal.
I am sure that nobody would say that we are greatly nearer a lasting settlement of international disputes and disagreements today than we were in January of this year. The Russians have still got vast forces under arms; they are still maintaining a tremendous armament production to equip not only their own forces but those of the satellite countries; and we are still very weak in the West in comparison with those forces. I had always thought that once we did embark upon a re-armament programme the Russians would make continual attempts to persuade us, through peace, campaigns and other gestures and manoeuvres, that our re-armament was unnecessary, and I think we have to be on our guard against manoeuvres of that kind.
In so far as genuine approaches may have been made by the Russians, in so far as there may be here and there a lightening of the situation, I would put it down entirely to our re-armament programme; because it is only through seeing that we are determined to defend ourselves that the Russians are, perhaps, beginning to be brought to a more co-operative state of mind. I think that we should grab at whatever signs there may be of honest intentions on their part; and that as we grow stronger we should be the more ready to co-operate and compromise.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Mr. Emrys Hughes(South Ayrshire) rose—

Mr. Wyatt: I think I know what questions my hon. Friend would ask.

Miss Jennie Lee: Answer them.

Mr. Wyatt: This is an argument which we have so frequently that I am sure that my hon Friend would not wish me to bore the House with it. If at this present stage we do have to have a reduced rearmament programme—and I want to spend a little more time on that in a moment—and if we have to reduce it by very much, we must face the fact that there are military risks involved; otherwise, the original £4,700 million programme would never have been adopted in the first place, and I believe that the country should be told what those military risks are. Apart from our production limitations—and I always believed myself that it would not be possible for our

factories to produce the entire £4,700 million programme within three years—

Mr. I. Mikardo: Why did my hon. Friend say so, then?

Mr. Wyatt: I never said so.
Apart from those production difficulties there is, of course, always the state of our home economy to be considered, particularly in the future. I do not concede that our present balance of payments position has in any way been caused by our own re-armament programme, though I do concede that it will be more difficult to solve it in the future with our present re-armament programme. There is a situation in which we may have to cut down on that programme, and that is, if we do not get United States aid, either directly or, preferably, indirectly through the burden-sharing inquiry at N.A.T.O., to carry us through that programme.
I say, in contradiction to some people, that we ought to be prepared to take that aid—to take what aid we can, to do as much of our re-armament programme as we can. Everybody was quite willing to take United States aid with the £3,600 million programme, and there is no logical reason for refusing aid for the £4,700 million programme. The then Chancellor of the Exchequer, during the defence debate last February, said that a burden-sharing inquiry was proceeding at N.A.T.O., to see what American aid would be allocated and how it could be divided. At that time no protest whatever was made. I think we should try to get that aid.
I believe that we have more influence with the United States with arms than without. There are many complaints at Question time—and I can sympathise with them—which say, "Why have we not got a representative in the armistice negotiations in Korea?" The answer is because our armed strength in Korea, in comparison with that of the Americans, does not justify the presence of a British military representative on the armistice commission. When we are talking in terms of arms, compared with the United States they are bound to demand the principal influence where they bear all the arms. Unless it is clear that we are going to do as much as we can so far as rearmament is concerned we are not going to have the influence that I think we ought to have.
The complaint about the £4,700 million re-armament programme earlier this year was, that we could not carry it through because the Americans were not being sufficiently helpful because they were not going to let us have the raw materials and economic aid we needed. Surely we should not say, if the Americans are going to be helpful, that we do not want that help? The reason why many people felt that our programme of £4,700 million would be too much was because they said the Americans were not being sufficiently helpful. Therefore, we should not refuse their help if we are going to get it now.
I think, however, that there is a danger the other way round, and that is that the United States may not give us aid; not that they will give it us, but that they may not give it us. In Europe today it is only Britain which has fulfilled its obligations to N.A.T.O. It is only Britain which has done each thing it said it would in the way of re-armament. It is, indeed, only Britain that would fight without American aid, if we got no American aid at all in Europe. Today, the morale of our soldiers is higher than those of any in Europe.
I think the reason for this situation is that other Governments in Europe know what their duty is with regard to rearmament, but will not do it. They will not do it because they are afraid that they will be thrown out of office by people who are defeated in their hearts before any battle begins—by people who believe that it is not possible to defend Europe and, therefore, are not prepared to make the effort to build up the Armed Forces necessary to do it. It is because there are craven Governments, matched in too many quarters by craven people, that we are not getting the build up that we ought to have in Europe.
It is natural enough that the United States may well hesitate to give aid to us in Europe when they see that these countries have not done all they could. I think that there is a wave of disillusionment in the United States at the moment so far as aid to Europe is concerned. As my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman), said, last March, more brilliantly than I could ever do, isolationism in the United States would be absolutely fatal to us in Europe, and to us in Britain in particular.
British re-armament has put some heart into Europe. But we need to take further steps if we are to get Europe to believe in itself and to believe in the possibility of its defending itself, and I believe that the time has come when nothing less than British active participation in the European Army is going to do this. We have rightly hesitated to take this step up to now because we have been trying to see what willingness there is in Europe for the possibility of co-operation.
I think the time has now come when we must step in on the ground floor of the European Army—and for three main reasons: one, because it is absolutely essential to our defence, if there should be a war, to keep the enemy away as far as possible from us in Europe; second, because if we are to get Europe to have enough confidence in itself to undertake the task of defending itself we must show it that we are in earnest about defending Europe, and that we regard our cause as being inextricably bound up with Europe's; and, third, because, though I hate the idea of it, I think that German re-armament in the long run is inevitable, and that the best way of controlling it, and at the same time of satisfying German aspirations in regard to their own army, is for us to be in the European Army from the very beginning.
I do not believe that a German contingent in a European Army which does not contain Britain can be controlled in the years ahead—and I am thinking of times, perhaps, 10, 15 or 20 years ahead. Unless we are there the Germans, who are the most proficient soldiers in Europe, will make rings round everybody else.
I think that we must be modest in our approach to the European Army. I do not think we should assume that a great and complicated structure can be built up at once. Where we have failed up to date, as far as the British are concerned, is in tending to reject the proposals put forward in Europe as being impracticable, and in not putting forward any of our own. I think that the European proposals, in the main—for a common uniform, common pay—are impracticable. We do not want to begin by going so far into detail as that. We want to begin where we are today.
We want to allocate, first of all, those divisions which we have in Germany to


the European Army, and to give a guarantee that, if we relieve one of those divisions, another one will be put into its place. We want to see that there will be sufficient reserve forces allocated behind those divisions, and say, "That is our contribution to the European Army to begin with." Then we should accept the possibility that the divisions of Britain, of France, of Western Germany can be put into multi-national corps commanded by a person of any nationality—somebody selected as being the most suitable for the job. If we do not get to grips with the European Army and actively put forward our own proposals, then I am convinced that the European Army will come to nothing, and European defence will fade away, which, incidentally, would greatly increase our dependence on America and not lessen it.
I think that in some of the recent utterances of the Prime Minister there has been a dangerous tendency to drift back into a special kind of Anglo-American relationship of the type which he enjoyed and was accustomed to during the war. I have an uncomfortable feeling sometimes, at Question time, that he is saving up a number of points with which to go to America, on which he is going to refuse all agreement now at European conferences, and he can then say, "If we can recreate the special Anglo-American relationship, perhaps we will concede you the point about the.280 rifle and the American admiral in the Atlantic, and generally do a bargain which would start to leave out Europe."
I think that if we or America, or both, begin to give the impression that we are going to pull out of Europe, then every vestige of the will to resist in Europe will vanish. Equally, if we begin to scale down our re-armament programme before making every effort to keep up to it, every other country in Europe will abandon much of what re-armament it has undertaken. I do not suggest that we have to keep to the letter of the programme over three years. I do not think that three years is a particularly significant date, except as an original target. I can accept the proposition that the rearmament programme will not be corn-Dieted for three-and-a-half years or a little either side, but what I cannot accept is that the balanced Force which that

programme represents should be abandoned, because, if it is, we shall be running very grave military risks indeed.
In the same way that settlement is no nearer to our world differences, so, it is more cheerful to appreciate, war is also no nearer. It is thought in some quarters that German re-armament may precipitate a Russian attack. I thought that this seemed very likely at one time—perhaps about six months ago—but I think that the Russians today do not seem so concerned about German rearmament as they are about the Atlantic Pact and Western re-armament generally. The background is still the same argument, about the atomic bomb, which has always hung over Europe. We have a stockpile of atomic bombs and the Russians have not, and I do not think that they are going to precipitate a war, at any rate until they have a stockpile as well as our having one.
I am not convinced that there is a strong case for the acceleration of rearmament and the creation of new reserves for next year. This was a very popular idea in military quarters—I am speaking not only of Britain—because it was felt that German re-armament undertaken next year might push the Russians into a war then, but I do not think that that is by any means true, and we require a lot more evidence on that point before agreeing to any acceleration next year that would put too great a strain on our resources. It would be much better, in my view, to maintain a steady course in the build-up of our Forces.
We are building up today a Force which can, if the Russians were to attack us, form a crust behind which reserve Forces could assemble and the war potential of the West be realised. We shall also have a Force which will be able to deal with acts of local aggression, like Korea, because there may be other acts, even in Europe, of a similar character. The mistake that those who criticised re-armament made was in not seeing that unless we had sufficient Forces there was no half-way house between abject surrender to Russian demands and the ultimate sanction of a third world war. We have to consider acts of local aggression and contain them, so that they do not advance into a third world war, and we cannot do that unless we have sufficient Forces at our disposal.
Finally, I would say that we must not, in this matter, delude our people into thinking that there are comfortable times ahead. We must not damage our own morale and that of the West by re-arming at one moment, by making deep cuts in re-armament at the next moment, and then, in a panic, start a further rearmament programme because some incident has taken place.
Above all, and here, I think, N.A.T.O. and the Supreme Headquarters of the Allied Powers in Europe have been at fault, we must tell people in the West more of what we are doing, how we are doing it and why we are doing it. There has been a lot of confused information coming out of these quarters recently. Before that, there was no information at all. I think that we must try to get more information because Europe must be made to believe in itself and in the possibility of defending itself.
We should never cease to emphasise that our Forces are designed for self-defence alone, and that there is no possibility of an arms race inherent in our programme in the West. Even if the most optimistic calculations of N.A.T.O. were fulfilled, we would still not have in 1954, or even in 1955 or 1956, Forces large enough to threaten Russia; not even remotely. [Interruption.] There would not be sufficient Forces in Europe under the plans made today.
What I am talking about is the general Western defence programme for the defence of Europe and it is not in any way envisaged that there should be huge military Forces stationed in Europe or that there is any possibility whatever of being able to assemble Forces strong enough to threaten Russia.

Mr. R. H. S. Crossman: On the point about Western Europe, does that remove the fact that certainly by 1956 America anticipate that American Armed Forces will be wholly adequate for an active policy against Russia; and if that is so, would not that put us in extreme danger?

Mr. Wyatt: I think that I follow my hon. Friend's fears, even if I do not always follow his thoughts. The point is that at the moment the Americans, far from wanting to put vast Forces in Europe, are tending not to put in quite

as much as N.A.T.O., or rather the Supreme Headquarters of the Allied Powers of Europe, would wish them to do. They cannot launch an attack on Russia unless they have some land contact with them or with the States contiguous to them, unless, of course, they go through Alaska which is a very unlikely route; so there is no possibility of the Americans being able to launch an attack on the Russians unless they put more troops in Europe first to do it, which they show no sign of doing. That is what I am discussing now.
We are not going to have a Force large enough, including the Americans and ourselves, in Europe, to be able to be a threat to Russia. All that these Forces will be able to do is to act as a deterrent to the Russians beginning a war, and will, in fact, form the crust to which I referred, behind which we hope to be able to have time to assemble our reserve divisions and industrial potential to win the war. They could never be large enough to attack Russia unless all the countries of Europe were to go on a war footing, which is quite unthinkable. No one suggests that even our present rearmament programme puts us on anything like a war footing.
The Russians know and understand that perfectly well. They are as well versed in military matters as, perhaps better than, our own generals in the West. They know that our Forces are quite incapable of attacking them; and we want to emphasise that fact to our people in this country and to the people of Europe, and to prove to them, at the same time, that the Forces which we are building up will be adequate to protect them, and that it is worth while their undertaking this burden to make the peace of the world secure.

6.56 p.m.

Mr. W. F. Deedes: I am glad to follow the hon. Member for Birmingham, Aston (Mr. Wyatt), not because I shall pursue his rather broad review of the defence programme, but because want to make a few observations on the subject of the.280 rifle. I should like to say that it was because of the courtesy of the hon. Gentleman, when he was in office in the late Government, that I was able to interest myself in the.280 rifle and see something of it in action.
It was quite clear from the remarks of the Prime Minister that we have two


irreconcilable factors. I think it is beyond dispute on either side of the House that the.280 rifle is an outstandingly good weapon. I do not think that any one who has tested it is prepared to contest that statement. We also have the problem of production which, with his unrivalled experience, the right hon. Gentleman went through this afternoon, and the fact that not until the end of 1954 can we begin to produce these rifles in anything like adequate numbers.
I am sure that hon. Members will agree that although we may be able to gear up production, as he suggested, and, perhaps, improve on that programme, we shall still be well short in the next two or three years of the numbers required. I take it that these irreconcilable factors will be discussed when the Prime Minister goes to Washington.
There are three points I want to make in respect of the discussions which will take place there. We have I think, taken five years from the moment of conception to the moment of production of this new rifle. It is, as with all these very technical weapons, an extremely long job to get the idea from the drawing board into production. To halt it at this moment would be to write off an enormous amount of work which has been done over those five years, and it would appear to be extremely important that we should not, if we can avoid it, break the chain of experimental progress. As with all these weapons, after a start has been made and production has begun, one learns about improvements that can be made.
The Prime Minister said that there were 20 in existence now. If we had 200, and if recruits were able to fire them, and if, as they were made, one or two were sent to Korea to put them to a practical test—as, I remember, weapons were put to a practical test in the last war—we should have learnt a good deal more about the faults, and there are bound to be some, in the weapon. I hope, therefore, that that chain of experimental progress will not be broken, as it would be broken if the rifle was put on the shelf tomorrow.
It is always difficult in this field to reconcile our inventive genius with our productive capacity. That is the heart

of the difficulty which we are up against. We have produced probably the best rifle in the world, but we have not the productive capacity to produce enough on our own account.
I would say that productive capacity is perhaps not the only factor which will arise at Washington. The Americans very naturally—and I do not say this critically—prefer on all occasions their own inventions. It has been said, perhaps wrongly, that they have a little rubber stamp device which, I think, bears the initials "N.M.H", which stands for "Not Made Here," which is liable to appear on inventions of other countries, as is perfectly natural, but I think that it would be unfortunate if that were applied to this particular weapon.
My third point is that I have an idea that this rifle will have a profound effect upon infantry tactics. I do not think it can fail to do so. A rifle which is capable of firing on to the target at something like eight to ten times the rate per minute of the old rifle, and which can be converted to an automatic weapon, cannot fail to alter substantially infantry tactics, to say nothing of the new problems which it creates, of, for example, ammunition. The sooner the infantry are given a chance to discover the value of this weapon for themselves and the effect which it might have on infantry tactics the better, so that perhaps they can investigate the potentialities of this new weapon in relation to their fire and movement.
Having seen this weapon, I have no doubt that it will do a tremendous amount to redress the balance of fire power of the infantry in relation to the fire power of other arms, a disparity, which many have thought has become more and more obvious in recent years.
Those are all the points of which I think our American friends should be aware. I should like to feel that they are going to be impressed. There is one final point. If we have produced the finest rifle in the world it should be one which will help not only the British soldier, but should be of benefit to all soldiers within the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. As such it would seem that it is in the interests of us all that the best, and only the best weapon should be placed in the hands of our infantry.

7.3 p.m.

Mr. Frederick Elwyn Jones: I hope the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) will not think me discourteous if I do not follow him into the technicalities of the rifle which he has been discussing. I should like to turn, if I may, to some of the observations of the Prime Minister in the interesting speech which he delivered to the House today. It opened on what I thought was a hopeful note. The right hon. Gentleman thinks that the danger of war in the world is not so great as it was two years ago. That I think is a conclusion that most of us in this House have come to, and if our situation is not so desperate as it was, I should have thought that the need for desperate measures was not as great as it was.
One of the desperate measures we in Europe have been talking about in recent years has been this question of German re-armament. I followed with some care, the observations of the right hon. Gentleman about the European Army. I confess I was not quite clear what he had in mind. Is his position this, that he is opposed to German re-armament save for German forces within the context of a European Army? I think it is important that the right hon. Gentleman should be quite specific upon that matter. If he has any idea that those in Germany, who will have to take a leading part in the armed forces that they are to raise, will be content with that situation then he is harbouring a grave delusion. I was interested that he was able to announce today to the House a specific undertaking by Chancellor Adenauer that Germany would not require or demand a German army.
This autumn I had the interesting experience when spending some time in Germany of talking to one of the gentlement in the office of Herr Blank, who is in charge of the future planning of the German armed forces. I am bound to say that the impression I got did not coincide with that which the Chancellor himself has told to the right hon. Gentleman. When I spoke to the staff officer within Herr Blank's department I was told that their conception of a German contribution was based on that classic German phrase Gleichberechtigung, which I understand means equality of status, or equality of rights.
I asked various Germans what they meant by this phrase. I asked one or two German generals, and particularly von Bayerlein, who was Rommel's Chief of Staff and in close touch with those people who are thinking about and planning the future armed forces of Germany. Their conception of equality of rights was, firstly, that the German armed forces shall have the same status, the same set-up, and the same degree of participation in a European army precisely as the French, and certainly they did not conceive of a situation where there would be a French army on the one hand and a military contribution by the French to a European army on the other. They said, "We insist that the German armed force, if it is to come into existence, must be on a parity of arrangements and status with that of France."
The Prime Minister must learn now that he cannot confine this potential tiger of German militarism, which the recreation of this armed force will re-create, within the silken bonds of Fontainebleau or the undertakings on a London visit of Chancellor Adenauer. Of course, there are some hon. Members on the other side of the House who regard German rearmament as a good thing in itself. That, I understand, is not the view of the Prime Minister. There are some on the other side of the House who think that any anti-Communist is good enough to arm and support, whether he be Franco in Spain or, as was the situation before the war, Hitler in Germany.
At this point I should like to refer to an observation made in 1936 by the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Supply. I am glad to see him in his place as I told him that I was going to mention the matter. I do not mention it to embarrass him. Indeed, many of us said things 15 years ago which we are not very fond of today, but I mention it to point a warning, if not to adorn a tale. In 1936 the Minister of Supply was saying that as long as persons were anti-Communist it was all right to arm them, to drill them and to build them up into a powerful force. This is what he was writing in "Europäische Revue" in October, 1936:
Germany declares that she requires a powerful armed force for self-defence
That has always been the argument through history in every re-armament phase we have had.


Why should the foreigner doubt her sincerity? She can point to the fact that she is surrounded by heavily armed nations. She can also draw attention to the growing military power of the Soviets. If the strength of the German Wehrmacht would help in any way to prevent Soviet Russia from supporting her cunning propaganda abroad by force, then, indeed. Germany renders a service to civilisation which may demand recognition. An objective examination of the aims of German foreign policy and of the methods used for its realisation, ought to calm those who are apt to fear Germany's intentions.
At the end he said that:
the subjugation of foreign populations would be considered a source of weakness rather than as added strength, according to a conscientious interpretation of National Socialist principles.
That was in 1936.
I know the right hon. Gentleman made amends since, for two or three years later I was associated with him in a humble way in the various things which were taking place then. But it was too late. The damage had been done. The gamble of creating the power of Hitler as a bastion against Soviet Russia had been made, and the end of it was that it required an alliance with the Soviet Union to enable this country to defeat the menace of the evil of Hitlerism.
I am not going to say that the potential dangers from a truncated Germany compare with the dangers from Hitler's Germany. But there is a very great danger, as I see it, in the present situation, not so much of German threats to security but of German influence upon the course of the strategy and political thinking of the west if they really do go in as a powerful military force.
I mentioned one of the conceptions of the German military personalities to whom I spoke, about the principle of equality of status. Another insistence of theirs is that they also expect to make their contribution to European strategy. I want to mention General Von Bayerlein for instance, who is portrayed in the Rommel film as a witty, attractive and generous German general. He was present at the Africa Korps rally in Westphalia which I attended. There a general spoke of the unity of the Germans with those of Eastern Germany and of "the lost territories" as he described those areas east of the Oder and the Neisse line. I told him that in present political conditions Germany could not hope to recover

these territories without war, and he said to me quite plainly, "Oh yes, just like the Polish Corridor in 1939" They have not learned a great deal if that is what they really think.
The German General Blumentritt has said things very much on the same lines. The right hon. Gentleman is playing with fire in this matter. After 1945 we succeeded in carrying through fundamental measures to eliminate the danger of the revival of German militarism. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman was proud to have supported those measures, because he knows what challenge that represents. He has contributed much of his distinguished career to combating it.
When I was in Blank office in Bonn they told me that one of their difficulties these days in creating the new set-up was that our de-militarisation had been too successful. They had no records or files left. One official said to me, "Everything we are doing now is strictly illegal." I asked him as a matter of interest what section of the Control Regulations made his activities in that office illegal. He said, "I am not quite sure about that," and he rang up a colleague upstairs, who was able to refer him to the appropriate paragraphs. So that was the situation that existed there.

Mr. F. J. Bellenger: I want to ask my hon. Friend whether these were private conversations which he had, because as he knows some of his hon. Friends at the same time were visiting Herr Blank as a Parliamentary delegation. We did not consider that we had a right, after talking to him, to quote what in essence was a private conversation.

Mr. Jones: I am glad to say that I was not in a Parliamentary capacity at all. I was there on that occasion in a journalistic capacity as I made clear to all those whom I interviewed. I did so with a note book in hand, and, indeed, I have published some of what I am saying in the House tonight. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman who is, I take it, my friend, will acquit me of a breach of confidence in this matter.
I was disturbed in my train of thought by that observation. The fact is that at the present time the forces of German militarism are reorganising themselves. I do not want to exaggerate the picture, but there has been formed in Germany a Provisional Committee of the new "German Soldiers' Union."
I learned something about its composition when I was there. Unfortunately the Prime Minister has now left. He really ought to look at this list, and see whether these are the kind of characters who would be prepared to take a secondary role in what is at the moment a tentative, non-existent European army. I am bound to say that the progress of the negotiations about that European army will not be greatly assisted by the recent observations by my hon. Friend the Member for Aston (Mr. Wyatt), who generously described our Western Allies as:
Craven governments leading craven people.
That observation, coming from a Junior Minister of the late Government, will I am sure go down very well in Paris. Luxembourg, and everywhere else.
These gentlemen who are leading the new military organisations within Germany are the same kind of gentlemen who were leading Germany into the situation into which she got before the war of 1939. The President of the Provisional Committee I have referred to is General Friessner, who has made political speeches and observations wholly out of keeping with Western ideas of re-armament as a defensive measure General Guderian and General Mannteufel are also active members of the committee. There are various S.S. generals who are active within the organisation. They are those who, if these German military forces are created, will take the lead.
One of their insistent terms, for instance—no doubt it was put to my right hon. Friend the ex-Secretary of State for War—for participation in the proposed European army, is an "Honour Declaration" with regard to the German armed forces. That involves not simply the release of this or that war criminal. It would be tantamount to the whitewashing of all the war crimes for which the German armed forces and those associated with them were responsible. Those are the facts. Do not let us deceive ourselves into thinking that we are dealing with elements of a different kind and with a different kind of problem.
If the political temperature of the world really is reducing itself, as I think it is, is it not imperative now, before the fateful steps which led to such misery before are taken, first of all to make a real, fundamental effort at negotiation? That hap-

pily at the moment is being begun, and I rejoice that it is being begun. But there is a terrible danger in these negotiations of what I may call "an ultimatum complex," of "now or never," and a showdown if it does not come off this time. That is a very dangerous approach to the matter. There are indications, to which the Prime Minister has referred, of a willingness by Soviet Russia to talk, and at least there is a lack of evidence of any preparation or intention on Russia's part in the foreseeable future to launch a world war.
That being so, is it not time not only to consider disarmament but to consider the whole armament position? I was interested to see that the facts of economics have turned the Prime Minister today into a Bevanite, because the £4,700 million programme has apparently been abandoned, at least for the first 12 months. I was interested in a significant observation reported yesterday from an American source. Mr. Reed, Chairman of the vast American General Electric Company, said:
I am convinced that if the N.A.T.O countries undertake to meet the defence production schedule as recently formulated and scheduled, serious political and economic disturbances will result.
Those are profound words of warning which we should do well to heed. They come from no alleged or accused fellow-traveller, but from a distinguished American businessman who has made a recent study of this problem in Europe.
Do not let us become, the captives of declarations made six months or 12 months ago, when the situation may have been different. Let us not take the view that we must go through at all costs with this re-armament programme whatever the political changes and whatever the hope of negotiation. There seems to be a fixed idea in the mind of my hon. Friend the. Member for Aston that since this £4,700 million programme has been decided upon it must be pushed through at all costs. If the political situation changes favourably, as it might well do, is there not a case for consideration of the whole structure and requirement of the re-armament programme? It is the idlest cynicism to hold conferences and to start discussions on disarmament in Paris, and then make speeches in this House indicating no kind of desire to abandon one step in our re-armament programme.
The time has come for fresh thinking in this matter. It is not cravenness of character or of morale which makes the people of Europe tremble again before the thought of being rushed into another war. It is the consciousness of that through which they so recently went, and of the agony which they so recently suffered.

7.22 p.m.

Mr. Charles Ian Orr-Ewing: In following the hon. Member for West Ham, South (Mr. Elwyn Jones), I would say that I think most people realise the grave danger of German rearmament. It is within the sphere of the European Army that we are anxious to surround any German contribution with safeguards in order that it does not get out of hand. This matter arouses in the minds of many people, and particularly in Jewish minds, a very real fear that the militarism that we have seen on many occasions will again assert itself in Europe.
I want to take up a point made by the Leader of the Opposition when he said he was pleased that this Government had accepted in its entirety the previous scheme for call-up of the G and Z Reserves. As one who himself did his 15 days, I feel that it was not altogether a perfect arrangement. I went as a technician. The moment it was known that I was going to be called up I had a very large number of letters from my colleagues. The general tone of them was: "You are lucky. How did you manage it?" I sent the names and addresses of the writers, some 40, to the right hon. Gentleman who was then the Secretary of State for Air, suggesting that he should fix it. It was not fixed.
When I got in to do my 15 days I felt that there was a lack of technical knowledge and effort to keep our radar equipment at full efficiency, and that it might have been as well if some of those technicians had been called up. Perhaps my hon. Friend will set this matter to rights on the next occasion.
I want to concentrate my remarks on a matter mentioned by the Leader of the Opposition, namely, whether we believe still that we are not getting value for money. I am convinced that, as a country, we are not getting the best value for the money that we are spending on

defence. If I take my illustrations and general examples from the electronic industry, I hope the House will excuse me. I do it for four reasons: first, because I believe it is typical of many other technical fields; second, because I have a personal knowledge of the industry, having done my apprenticeship in it and having grown up in it; third, because we must concentrate on punctual deliveries of our electronic equipment if our modern aircraft are to perform the functions for which they are designed; and, last, because money spent on electronic equipment may well save us money in other directions.
If we can halve the bombing error, we may achieve the same result with a quarter of the bombing force. If we therefore reduce our requirements from 400 Canberra bombers, with all the trained men which back up that force, to 100 Canberra bombers, we are getting a very real economy for the same effect. It is for the four reasons that I have put forward that I concentrate on this field.
I want first to refer to the question of costs. I shall refer constantly to costs because I believe mankind has not devised a better yardstick to measure the work done by designers, engineers, draughtsmen, toolmakers, foremen and skilled man-power. In all those spheres we are in a desperately difficult position in regard to the re-armament programme. Every time effort is diverted to nonessentials in our equipment, something else is delayed. Hon. Gentlemen on all sides of the House who are in contact with this problem will know that dates are slipping in every direction all the time. Therefore, we must concentrate our efforts on first things first.
How does this situation arise? Why are we trying to divert too much effort to too-perfect equipment? I think it is because in the years after the war the Services had some time to think and they thought up a specification known as K114, which was very rigid and hard. It asked that all equipment to be manufactured for the Forces should be capable of operating from the Arctic to the Equator. The specification lays down a very good test which might be applied in this House during debates. It is a bump test; that is to say, the equipment has to be dropped from a height of 1 in, on to a steel plate,


and it is vibrated and put through temperature cycles.
But I do not believe that the people who thought up that specification, which by itself is very fine, realised the repercussions which those ideas would have in the entire re-armament sphere. Did the serving officers and the technical civil servants who compiled that list realise the pressure which would be exerted on industry?
Did they realise that industry would at the same time be struggling to export and also to produce some consumer goods? Did they appreciate that extra delays would result in the development of new models, because it would take longer to develop this pan-climatic equipment capable of operating from -40 degrees C. to +55 degrees C. That is to say, in Fahrenheit, from 72 degrees of frost to 131 degrees.
Did those people evaluate—this is important—the extra money which would be required to achieve this pan-climatic provision? I should like to illustrate what I mean in the case of equipment with which I am concerned. It is costing £500,000 to develop this equipment. One-third of that sum is expended because the equipment is required to be designed to operate from the Arctic to the Equator. It has taken one-third longer to develop the equipment because each equipment is required to operate from the Arctic to the Equator. Yet 90 per cent. of this equipment will be used in the temperate zones.
I cannot help feeling that it is good strategy on the part of some enemy to suggest that some crisis will arise in the Arctic or at the Equator if, as a result of that, we are going to make all our military ground equipment suitable for operating over such a wide range of temperatures. Particularly is it good strategy if it will delay the essential defence of the temperate zones and the essential defence of Western Europe; and that is exactly what is happening.
We are not getting our equipment to time because we have set too high a standard and too high a specification. Maybe it is too late to change now, but I urge the Government to have a look at this aspect and perhaps relax the very high standard which they have applied to all the equipment which is being made.
To turn to my second point, when technical civil servants visit one, as one tries to struggle with the re-armament problem, they seem to think it is slightly vulgar and a little out of place if one asks them whether what they are asking is worth the money and what the cost of it is. If we are to get value for money—I come back again to that phrase—in our defence, I believe that we must make people more money-conscious. I believe that serving officers and technical civil servants should say to themselves, "What will this cost? If I am to have that I must forgo something else, because I am pulling technical man-power and technical effort in this direction."
I believe that one should know the price of jeeps, jets and car jacks. I do not want to speak in a jocular vain, but it might well be valuable to put the cost on them. People would take greater care of equipment if they knew how many thousands of pounds had been spent in developing it and putting it in the field.
I now turn to another sphere where I believe we are expending unnecessary technical effort, and that is in regard to the appearance of our equipment. I am afraid that industry has not perhaps been an ally of the Defence Services in this sphere. Any firm naturally wants to turn out equipment which looks nice and is beautifully engineered, but I am not sure that we can afford to turn out such beautiful looking equipment.
I have here a sample which I collected this morning. It is a beautifully designed escutcheon which is now put on four units in a piece of radar equipment. The cost for four is £2. We fought the last war quite adequately when we put on paper transfers instead of these beautifully engraved pieces of aluminium. This may be a small illustration, but I suggest that in each case people should ask themselves, "Is it worth it? We can operate perfectly well under the old conditions. Do we really want to use our scarce aluminium on this sort of thing?"

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Can the hon. Gentleman tell me the firm which made that?

Mr. Bellenger: It is to a specification of the Ministry of Supply.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: I do not know whether we bought it from a sub-contractor or made it ourselves. In any case, I believe it would be out of order to mention firms in this House, but if the hon. Gentleman wants to buy one and would like to see me outside I will tell him where to get one.
I should like to quote another example. In the old days we used to spray our equipment a matt black, which was perfectly adequate. As a matter of fact, the equipment was used in dim lighting and there was more operational efficiency if we did not have a very high gloss finish, because it did not reflect the lights behind one. But nowadays everything has to have chromium fittings, and we are to have a high gloss finish.
The present-day cost of finishing to the old standard was £10. The latest estimate for finishing to the new standard equipment not dissimilar is £65. When we calculate that in terms of thousands of pieces of equipment, it is money going down the drain, and it is pulling away the effort of skilled man-power which is badly needed for other projects.
I was somewhat amused by one of our correspondents, who seemed to hit the nail on the head when we asked him to quote for the finishing of a piece of equipment. After long explanations of how difficult it was to finish to this very high standard which was being demanded, he ended by saying:
It occurs to us"—
this is a business letter—
that the essence of this job is to give the ferrous parts the greatest possible protection from corrosion during service. It carries priority as a defence order requirement. Is it, therefore, necessary during this period of labour shortage, to demand a finish that could grace the Board Room of the Goldsmiths' Hall?
There is a lot of common sense in that query. Are we not demanding too high a finish for many of our products and thus diverting effort from other essential work?
May I make a last plea to my right hon. Friends on the Front Bench? This country stands or falls, both in peacetime and in a period of the cold war, on the training of its technical man-power. Technical man-power is the seed-crop for the future, and however much we are up against things I hope we will not try and

run down, or in any way reduce, the length and thoroughness of our technical training. We are dependent for our exports, for our defence, and for our very survival on our technical man-power, and I hope that whatever other cuts we may make we will endeavour to maintain the standard we have set in the past and try to meet the expanding need.

7.37 p.m.

Mr. Edward Shackleton: I hope to make one of the shortest speeches in the debate in order to allow as much time as possible for my hon. Friends and for hon. Members opposite who wish to speak. I should like, first, to follow the remarks of the hon. Member for Hendon, North (Mr. C. I. Orr-Ewing), who, like myself, served as a Class G man. I feel even more ashamed than he did about our evasion of Parliamentary duty. I do not know whether the hon. Member evaded Parliamentary duty, but I successfully evaded the two longest all-night Sittings since the war.
For Class G and Class Z men generally, it was a useful and effective experience. I have only one passing remark to make. I was struck, coming back six years after I had left the Service, by the disappearance of a certain degree of what might be called "operational know-how"—the hon. Member may have had similar experience in a different field.

Mr. C. I. Orr-Ewing: Hear, hear.

Mr. Shackleton: There were certain parts of knowledge which were not easily rendered on to paper, but which were essential for the job, which somehow seemed to have slipped from the minds of those who were responsible for operations.
That brings me to the rather serious point of specialisation. I know that it is always desirable in any Service to try to afford a proper career course for officers and for men. While there is specialisation in technical fields, there is inevitably no specialisation in operational fields. This, again, can have bad consequences, because in Coastal Command a large number of the officers and men who were serving and who had had wartime experience had acquired it in other commands. This was one of the factors in the disappearance of that "know-how" that we had during the war.
I ask the Government, as I asked the previous Government year after year, to look at the position of Coastal Command in relation to the Navy. I am one of those who has always advocated an independent Coastal Command, by which I mean an R.A.F. Coastal Command. I was alarmed, and, by what I have heard since from talking to my friends in both Services, I am increasingly alarmed, as to whether the Air Force and the Air Ministry are not forfeiting their right to Coastal Command. The rundown has been of an immense and serious nature. We know the reasons for that—I do not propose to apportion blame to the present Government. If it is anybody's blame, it is that of the last Government and of the Air Staff and Air Council.
I ask the Government to look very seriously at this problem, because an obligation is laid on the Air Force in this field and it is an obligation that they must fulfil. Unless the Government and the Air Force face up to it a little more strongly, they will soon find themselves threatened once again with the demand from the Navy to have its own land-based aircraft to fulfil the role of Coastal Command. I urge the Parliamentary Secretary, whom I see now present, to consider this matter very closely.
I pass now to some of the remarks of the Minister of Defence. I am told—I do not know whether it is true—that when the right hon. Gentleman took on the post of Minister of Defence, which, I think, was a post which he took on very lightly, in view of his other great responsibilities, he was surprised to find that there was, in fact, a Ministry of Defence and a great deal more routine work attached to the office
One of the most striking things from the right hon. Gentleman's speech has been his obvious surprise at certain events which have taken place in the last few years. He referred in particular, with some surprise, to the fact that there has been a considerable measure of progress in the field of atomic energy. The fact is that the right hon. Gentleman could at any time have had that essential information in defence matters had he accepted the invitation of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. One of the tragedies of the right hon. Gentleman's position today is that he has to come forward and change his

tone, and, indeed, eat his words, when he could so easily have avoided embarrassing himself in this fashion.
I wish, in particular, to refer to the appointment of the admiral in command of the North Atlantic area. I was astounded to hear the Prime Minister say, in effect, that this is not a matter of national pride. Hon. Members on both, sides who heard the right hon. Gentleman's violent utterances on the discussion of this appointment will realise that on that occasion he took the narrowest national point of view. Now, he is arguing that it is simply a matter of whether the appointment is operationally right and that the question of nationality does not come into it.
Here, again, the right hon. Gentleman could have had the information had he wanted it. It is due to the action of the present Prime Minister on that occasion that we have not yet settled this urgent problem. I ask him to look into it very closely and seriously, and to forget his earlier prejudices. He has already retreated backwards to some extent from the position he held previously, and I hope he will continue that retreat and look at the matter objectively. I hope that those Ministers who are associated with defence matters will advise the right hon. Gentleman objectively with the information that their professional advisers give them and that we get this problem settled. I should like to discuss it at length, but I wish to keep my speech as short as possible.
There is one further point to which refer. It seems inevitable in a debate on defence that we have to discuss foreign affairs, and inevitably the question of German re-armament arises. I am one of those Members on this side of the House—there may be some opposite—who have always been opposed to German re-armament. I still dislike the idea intensely. I say only one thing to my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, South (Mr. Elwyn Jones). It is a serious problem whether or not Germany can be integrated into Western Europe. I still believe that the majority of Germans today are bitterly opposed to the idea of war. Indeed, I think that a majority of them are opposed to the idea of re-armament. Exactly how Germany is to be integrated into Western Europe without having full sovereignty, which, of course,


involves, if necessary, the right to form an army, is something that I find extremely difficult to say.
I have always felt that it was a matter of timing, that it was desirable to put off German re-armament as long as humanly possible, because I believe it is one of the actions which would tend to close the door and the possibility of negotiation with Russia and Eastern countries. But I also say that the idea of the European Army, which was sedulously put around by the Conservatives when they were in Opposition as part of their pan-European idea, is something which has caught hold of the imagination of Europe. It has caught the imagination of a large number of French people, many of whom would welcome a German contribution for the fact that it would help to make real this idea of a united Europe.
This is a matter on which I have the gravest doubts, but I cannot leave the subject without saying that I think the greatest betrayal of the idea of a European Army and a united Europe has been committed by the party which now forms the Government and that the disappointment and disillusionment of France and other countries after the lip service they have paid to the idea is one of the tragedies of today.

7.45 p.m.

Sir Robert Cary: I think the hon. Member for Preston, South (Mr. Shackleton) and the hon. Member for West Ham, South (Mr. Elwyn Jones), were expressing quite unnecessary fears about the scale of German re-armament. I do not think the scale of German re-armament envisages a Germany which I hope has passed away for ever, but I hope it has been agreed that there should be a Germany of some military strength. The Prime Minister was quite clear about this, that a German army should be contained within a European army which itself would be surrounded by the Atlantic Treaty Organisation.
The concluding sentences uttered by the hon. Member for Preston, South, like those of his colleague the hon. Member for West Ham, South, were completely unjustified, and what he means by talking about betrayal by right hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House in their present proposals for the re-armament of

Germany I do not know, but I think that was one of the most sweeping and damaging statements, not only to a party in this House, but to the intentions and will of the House of Commons.

Mr. Shackleton: The hon. Member is misrepresenting me. I referred to their talking of the idea of a United Europe and a European army. The hon. Member has only to go to France to find out how bitterly they feel about it.

An Hon. Member: Absolute nonsense.

Sir R. Cary: I have not had the opportunity, but we in this debate today, as far as possible, should speak with a united voice. I agree that our central problem is still the problem of Germany. What the future of that country will be, no one can prophesy, but I think a solemn duty rests on all parties in this House to give an enemy which we defeated on two occasions a chance now to rise from their ashes and to join us as a free democracy in the European community.
In listening to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister opening the debate, I am sure that many hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House felt their memories stirred of other days when the Prime Minister discharged that task with his customary skill and a high strategic comprehension of the needs of our national defence. Like some other hon. Members, I took part in many of the debates which took place during the war years and, in returning to the House, it is perhaps a matter of regret that I should intervene again in a debate upon defence, but at least I do appreciate what has been said by the Prime Minister in respect of the British Army not merging into a European army, but being joined to that army. The British Army in doe future is not to be pitchforked into a pan-European army irrespective of the obligations it might have elsewhere.
The Prime Minister paid tribute to the work of the late Mr. Ernest Bevin in 1948, when the Berlin Air-lift was in operation, and our desires on that occasion to remind European Governments that dangers would come from Russia and that it would be to their interest to begin to think in terms of resisting that threat. I think the Leader of the Opposition and individual Members of this Government were at pains at that time


in their speeches to draw the attention of European Governments to the dangers of Russian aggression, but, between that time—1948 and 1949—and now our position has changed.
Whereas in 1948 and 1949 our interest was centred upon Europe, in the last three or four years world events in Malaya, Korea, the Persian Gulf, and now in Egypt, have widened the horizon considerably. While leaders of European Governments, the Governments of France and similar countries in Northern Europe, are still pre-occupied with European defence, the British Government and the Commonwealth Governments associated with it are compelled to look at the whole problem of defence on a much wider horizon, in which Europe for the moment is only a part, and may not be the most important part.
Ten days ago we had a discussion in this House on the restoration of the Home Guard and it was implied in that debate that one of the needs for bringing back the Home Guard was the fact that our Armed Forces were a part of a wider strategic Allied plan and that we should not look, as in former days, to our Regular Army and Territorial Army to defend this country. It implied that we may have to regard the military commands and stations well known to us—such as Aldershot, Salisbury Plain and Catterick—as merely transfer and equipment depots and to divert the Regular and Territorial Forces of this country into other spheres beyond our shores. We might find ourselves left to defend ourselves, by all the agencies we have for immediate use, in our fields and factories without that customary call made in days gone by upon our fully trained Armed Forces.
It is a little strange that the Leader of the Opposition, when following the Prime Minister today, expressed the hope that this country was not to be turned merely into a fortress. That was following the observations of the Prime Minister that any invading paratrooper who landed in this country would find it the back of a hedgehog and not the paunch of a rabbit. The Leader of the Opposition suggested that no practical steps should be taken through the Home Guard to convert this country into a fortress but that its true defence lay further away from its shores. As a result of the redoubtable wisdom, courage and leadership of the Prime

Minister in 1940 this country did successfully stand as a fortress and perhaps one of the great miracles of that time—almost to the point of Divine intervention—was that summer day and calm sea in the English Channel when we were able to get back to this country 355,000 men of the British Army, often in shaky and leaky craft which would not have survived one disagreeable day on the Serpentine—

Mr. Bellenger: And Frenchmen, too.

Sir R. Cary: And many Allied details, French, Polish and all who cared to join with us. If the worst happens to the world we may have to be prepared to think along similar lines again. I for one am glad that the Prime Minister did make it perfectly clear that the British Army will not merge into a European Army, but will be joined to it, leaving us quite free should we wish to retain within our own shores some part of our Regular and Territorial Forces and that degree of army strength necessary to defend this island.
I wish to say a word about the observations of the Prime Minister regarding the.280 rifle, and some of the observations of the hon. Member for Aston (Mr. Wyatt). It seems to me that the decision of the Prime Minister and his military advisers to retain a pool of rifle strength and manufacture, even though that centres chiefly on the.303 rifle, is, in the circumstances, a right decision. If there is to be a new weapon of equipment it should be given not only to the British soldier but to other armies which have to be equipped. It might be used to provide at long last for an allied army a standard weapon of equipment for which there would be a ready, steady and certain flow of ammunition. In my opinion the problem is not a problem of the type of rifle.
I think this problem of the rifle strength of the British Army belongs to the realm of the ammunition which can be supplied, its availability, and the readiness with which it can be transported to the front line. If we have a fast-firing rifle using up vast quantities of ammunition we shall get into exactly the same difficulty as those units of the American Army got into on two occasions in Korea, when on one occasion they were forced to retreat, and on the other forced to surrender, because they completely ran out of ammunition. There are some right hon.


and hon. Gentlemen in the House who can recall the difficulties and dangers of those first years of the last war when ammunition supplies, greedily fed through the Royal Air Force and the British Army, disappeared so quickly that sometimes our machine gun and rifle strength was almost totally immobilised.
The Prime Minister talked about the immense difficulty of aircraft production and that the highest priority in our defence programme would be given to the aeroplane. We know that my right bon. Friend the Minister of Supply is already over-loaded and his Department over-burdened with work.

Mr. Shackleton: Does not the hon. Gentleman then agree that the Minister Of Supply should not waste time trying to de-nationalise the steel industry?

Sir R. Cary: No, that is not altogether a fair point to make. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Supply will take the Bill to de-nationalise iron and steel in his stride. But as this rearmament programme does intensify and widen in its scope, an immense burden will fall on his Department, and I would seriously ask the Prime Minister if he will consider whether the true interests of the re-armament programme might best be served if he were to re-create the Ministry of Aircraft Production or create a cadre of the Department that once existed during the last war.

Mr. Mikardo: Not again; we had too much of that last time.

Sir R. Cary: That may be so, but if we are to re-arm, surely the most effective way to begin is to deploy to the best advantage and in the most economical and efficient manner those who have to guide the programme and direct man-power and materials. I think that a most useful step would be taken by the Government if they considered whether this famous—and, from some points of view, infamous—Department of other days, with all its history, should be recreated. But right hon. and hon. Gentlemen must not ask me to name who I think might be an admirable propellant in the beginning to take command of such a Department.
This is the first occasion I have intervened in a debate in this House after

having wandered about in the wilderness for six years. Before I left the House in the war years it was in a defence debate that I spoke. I think the happiest message which will go out from this discussion today is that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is back at 10, Downing Street. In view of the disclosures made to us by the Prime Minister today, after seeing all the documents, I had a sneaking feeling that the Leader of the Opposition—who was speaking in such low temperature and without any reference to conversations once held with another Leader of the Opposition behind the Speaker's Chair two years ago—secretly agreed with the sentiment I now express.
Surely on all sides of the House it must be not only with a voice of praise but almost with a sense of relief that hon. Members see the man who led us so well in those critical years but a short time ago back again as Prime Minister, to undertake this most necessary and most vital operation, the re-arming of our country.

8.4 p.m.

Mr. Victor Yates: I wish I could feel as confident as the hon. Member for Withington (Sir R. Cary) about the effect of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister as the leader of the country. During the past six-and-a-half years I have noted the statements about defence which have been made in this House, and the defence policy. With every debate we have had has come a further feeling of fear and anxiety.
The hon. Member for Withington seemed to speak as though he was quite pleased with the situation and that all is now safe. What a world of delusion he must live in. When I heard the Prime Minister speaking this afternoon, and when he said that the more we had deterrents the less became the danger, I could not help feeling that he is living in a world of delusion and that, in due time, he will realise it. The hon. Gentleman who has just spoken referred, at the beginning of his speech, to the fact that on this side of the House there were unnecessary fears, which had been exaggerated, about German re-armament. I should like to say to him, and also to my hon. Friend the Member for Aston (Mr. Wyatt), who I am sorry is not in his place, that anyone who has been in


Germany in the last year and has had very close association with the ordinary people there would have no difficulty whatever in understanding that there is considerable and grave fear in that country at the prospect of re-armament.
In September I accepted an invitation from the Trades Union Congress of Germany, an organisation which now represents more than six million German workers, to go round Germany to obtain information and an understanding of the feeling of German workers. I can say that, without the slightest doubt, the overwhelming mass of German workers are totally opposed to their country being rearmed, and to any measure of force which is being used in an attempt to do so on the part of the Western Powers.
There is much that I would like to say on an occasion of this kind, but this important debate has been restricted by time, and I wish to confine my remarks to a few minutes. I believe that, just as the policy of negotiation from strength or the policy of peace through strength is a delusion, so also is it a delusion to believe that what is now being proposed at this stage is a deterrent to world war. I do not believe it.
In the past 6½ years, a few of us who now sit on this side of the House have opposed these gradual measures of rearmament. First, there was conscription for 12 months, then for 18 months and, later, for two years, and, with that two-year period, there came a re-armament programme of £3,600 million, which I have consistently opposed. I believe now, as I believed then, that that policy was leading us into a vicious spiral, which, unless checked, would lead to world chaos and the downfall of civilisation. Within a few months, that programme was stepped up from £3,600 million to £4,700 million, and, in the House in February last, I was asking what had happened from September to February to justify this additional £1,000 million. I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan), following that debate, has come to appreciate what some of us were then saying—that this programme would, in fact, be a great tragedy for the country.
I was very interested in the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Aston, who believes that what we have achieved

up to the moment was bringing the Russians to a more sensible attitude and a greater willingness to understand and to talk. To me, that is simply ridiculous. If we take the view of the Foreign Secretary himself, he said recently, in regard to a speech by Mr. Vyshinsky, that it was a cataract of abuse, and that it did not anger but saddened him. Was that an indication that Russia had been brought to a more sensible and reasonable attitude?. The right hon. Gentleman went on to say that the most fantastic of all the charges levelled against us by Mr. Vyshinsky was that we were warmongers.
I do not, of course, agree with the outlook of Mr. Vyshinsky, but I have been trying to understand what was in his mind. It was reported in the "Manchester Guardian," that he thumped the table and was in a state of great anger. He said that the effective military Forces of Britain, the United States and France more than doubled those of the Soviet Union. In the same speech he went on to say:
From year to year, the United States was building up its Army, Navy and Air Force, was erecting hundreds of Air Bases and arranging an alliance embracing even countries from the former Axis—Japan, Italy and Western Germany—well versed in the business.
What Mr. Vyshinsky was saying, in effect, was this: "Here you are building up the most massive and terrific military forces, and you come to the United Nations in a white cloak as an angel of peace." It does not square; it does not make sense at all, and I am quite sure that the stronger and more powerful we make our defence programme, it will, instead of bringing us nearer to peace, gradually cause us to drift further and further towards the greatest catastrophe the world has ever known. That is what we have to face.
I was also interested in what the Prime Minister said about the air bases in East Anglia, from which we were to launch atomic bombs upon Russia if Russia should be an aggressor. What effect can that have in Russia? As a matter of fact, in the last debate on defence in which I spoke, I referred to an American magazine "United States News and World Report" In that magazine, we were told that Admiral Kirk, United States Ambassador to Moscow, had stated


that there were none of the tell-tale preparations for war in Moscow.
I was interested to see, in the same American magazine later, in May, an article telling us exactly what the Americans were doing. It said:
Atomic bombs available to the bomber forces of the United States now number at least 1,000. There are 10 or more bombs for each major industrial centre of Russia. Professional opinion is that at least seven out of 10 of these bombs could be delivered on their targets. The United States has access to the world's major sources of uranium. …
On the seas, even more than in the air, the power of this country dominates. Seventeen aircraft carriers, 700 other fighting ships are in service. Great fleets of naval vessels remain in moth balls, ready to be taken out as needed. Aircraft carriers in service are capable of carrying bombers, themselves capable of carrying atomic bombs, close to the industrial heart of Russia. Atomic energy before long, will be powering the first of a fleet of American submarines of ultra-modern type.
We now read that, since the war in Korea began, America has spent over 60 million dollars on defence, while we are faced with a programme, which, in fact, cannot be carried out. That has been admitted today in full. But even if it could be carried out, the danger, in view of the fear that is being created, would be tremendously great. I want to say to the new Government, as I have said to my hon. and right hon. Friends in previous Parliaments, that I think we are on the most dangerous path we could ever tread, and I for one am totally opposed to this stupid, ridiculous' and futile policy.

8.15 p.m.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Most observers outside this country who watch our proceedings in the House of Commons are well aware that our debates on foreign policy and defence are what the Americans call bi-partisan in character. But it would take a whole gallery of observers in constant attendance to realise the true facts of the situation that we are far more than bipartisan—that we are thoroughly inter-partisan.
The Labour Party today has provided a number of speakers who have so disputed with each other that the party as a whole might fit the phrase of the Prime Minister about a hedgehog with a prickly

back. At any rate, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Aston (Mr. Wyatt) and several other hon. Members opposite, are, to use a geological expression, outlyers of political thought from the party on these benches, and it remains to be seen whether I fit into the same category on the opposite side.
I want to make some observations about the European Army and the rearmament of Germany. First of all, I think we ought to decide what we mean by a European Army. There is a European Army in Europe at the present time. Each nation has its contingents standing to arms in Germany in some respects as an occupying Force and in some respects to ward off the dangers from the East. The question is really whether those Forces shall be consolidated into a new political arrangement, and whether greater effectiveness is given to our standing by that process.
I was very glad to hear from the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister that in the sense of political consolidation, Britain was not to take part. She would be friendly and observing, but outside the process. I regard that fact as tantamount to the destruction of the European Army idea, and for my part I do not object to it at all. The difficulties of overcoming national sovereignty are stupendous in Europe today, and I sometimes think that the Americans, who view this thing from 3,000 miles away, are too apt to regard Europe as a sort of federated complex like themselves, where, in the course of a few short months or years, one can create a grand political design and harmonise all conflicting interests.
I imagine that France herself would be very far from wanting to put into such a force contingents of her Army that might have to be moved to deal with French colonial problems, and, in a way, France and ourselves are in the same sort of political predicament about joining the European Army. We on our part would find it hard enough now to suggest to General Eisenhower, should we want to do so, that a division now present in Germany which might seem in the course of time not to be fully employed in dealing with apparent dangers should be transferred out of that theatre in order to deal with some vital question which concerned us in the Far or Middle East.
How much more difficult would that be if we, or, for that matter, the French, had to take our request to a European General Staff, a European Defence Minister and a Council of Ministers in charge of that whole operation? One or two newspapers have talked of the inevitable trend in these events, that we should have to create a European political organisation and a form of Cabinet Government and elected members from the separate countries to have charge of those proceedings.
If anything like Cabinet solidarity is to prevail in those circumstances, it would be quite impossible for a great country like ourselves or for the French to move a division or a brigade out of that complex without a great deal of discussion. Even then, we could only move it if the whole of that supposed Cabinet was in agreement with the idea.
Therefore, the first two points put forward by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Aston, about the necessity for a European Army seem to be disposed of. The first was that it was essential in order to keep the enemy away. I say that the present organisation is perfectly capable of doing that. His second point was that we must show ourselves to be in earnest. That is a point which is self-destroying from what I have attempted to describe to the House. His third point, however, is more important. It was that German re-armament is inevitable, and that, therefore, a European Army is the best type of organisation to take charge of the political dangers that might arise.
I do not regard German re-armament as inevitable. It depends on what we do here and now. If we create a German army, then it becomes a force which must be taken charge of by some sort of political organisation in Europe. But if we do not create a German army, then the final reason which he gave for the creation of a European Army disappears.

Mr. A. Edward Davies: Will the hon. Gentleman pardon my interrupting him in order to seek his views on this point? Do not some of the protagonists of the European Army envisage not only setting up a central body, but also the retention in their own countries of a national Force? For example, was not that view held by some hon Members as regards this

country? Certainly in the case of France there was no intention, was there, of completely handing over the defence forces to the European Army? If that is so—and I agree with the views of the noble Lord, if I may say so—would that not give rise to a position of great difficulty, of denying to the Germans at some point, if they are to have parity of status, a national army?

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: I am afraid I do not quite know what is intended by the French. My estimate was that the French, being the progenitors of this idea, would want to put into the organisation the whole of their Metropolitan Army, but not, of course, any Forces in French territories overseas.
I come now to discuss some of the considerations affecting the re-armament of Germany.

Mr. Edward Short: Mr. Edward Short (Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central) rose—

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: I am afraid I cannot give way again.
I have always been against the rearmament of Germany, and I still am. I believe there is a case for employing Germans as individuals either in a French foreign legion or in the French Army, or in a British or colonial army, and, indeed, I would not object to an armed German police force and some form of skeleton frontier guard which was on nothing more than an infantry basis. But anything that leads upwards to battalions, brigades and divisions I still regard as menacing. And I regard it as more menacing today than I did a year ago, when the Korean war was at its height and when the fear of a general Russian military advance was far greater than it is at the present time.
It seems to me, for various reasons, to be a bad moment to build up on this idea of a German national armed force or even a German force which is embraced in this European complex. Even a few brigades would necessitate a general staff and that would lead to the recrudescence in Germany of militarism, of a corps of officers and of a general idea and belief in the return to power of a German army
For nostalgic reasons I went back to the report of the Crimea Conference of 11th February, 1945, Cmd. 6598. I


found there that we are under the most solemn obligation not to re-arm Germany. One knows very well that a great deal of water has flowed under the bridge since then and that we have suffered great provocation from the Russians, but that is not the subject of debate today. The words in the report are absolutely clear and specific and the signatures are those of the Prime Minister, Mr. Roosevelt and Marshal Stalin. The report says:
It is our inflexible purpose to destroy German militarism and Nazism and to ensure that Germany will never again be able to disturb the peace of the world. We are determined to disarm and disband all German armed forces; break up for all time the German General Staff that has repeatedly contrived the resurgence of German militarism; …
Those words are absolutely binding, and at the end of that document there are expressions of the highest hope for the peace of the world being maintained and propagated by the United Nations.
But there are other reasons why I think it is a mistake to re-arm the Germans. I could never understand what it was that induced Mr. Bevin, when he went to America a year last October, to yield the principle of German re-armament to the United States. He got nothing out of it for this country in return. If he had seen fit to concede it in return for some Russian concession it would have been valuable. He went to America in a sick condition. He was photographed there in a sleeping condition and suddenly he woke up to find the principle had been conceded.
I would use the threat of re-arming Germany as a means of getting concessions out of Russia. The concession we ought to get is the establishment of a central German Government controlled by a quadrilateral veto on the lines of the Austrian Agreements. I might explain briefly, because this is not a foreign affairs debate, that the Austrian set-up is one where no change in the basic constitution or statute of occupation can be made without all four Powers agreeing.
There is in Austria today a window upon the Iron Curtain. Democracy and free elections prevail throughout the whole of that country, even in the Russian zone of occupation; and there is the fact that only one Communist

M.P. is directly elected to the Austrian Central Government from the Communist-controlled Eastern Austria. I cannot for the life of me see why we should not move now towards the same solution in Germany.
It has been suggested by some that our objective should be greater than that, that we should demand in return for the refusal to re-arm the Germans in the West the withdrawal by Russia of all military and civilian officials from East Germany. I think that would be tantamount to the repudiation of a binding agreement made by this country at Teheran and might be regarded by the Russians as a provocative move.
The burning issue of our time in Europe is the recovery for democracy of Eastern Germany. I do not think it can be done by armed force or by the threat of armed force. I think it can only be done by negotiation. Therefore, I am all the more pleased to find that under the Foreign Secretary's new guidance in Paris a commission is being established to investigate the possibility of free elections throughout Germany. If we can desist from re-arming Germany and at the same time can secure a four-Power centralised government with headquarters in Berlin or Bonn, great advances will be made by this country for democracy and peace.
One subject not yet mentioned in this debate, and into which I enter with some trepidation, is the course of American military policy. I am myself half American, and I have searched long in my heart and conscience before thinking it at all wise to mention some of these topics. But it seems to me we should give recognition to the pace at which Americans are now moving in the military field. I confess to some feeling of apprehension about the course of military policy in the United States.
I gave some figures to the House a year ago of British and Russian re-armament, and I would not weary the House with figures of that kind again today. Suffice to say that the amount of money being spent by Russia on defence today, according to "Izvestia," figures which have never been contradicted, is exactly the same—within a fraction per cent.—as it was in 1938. The United States was spending in 1938, before the war began, 10 per cent. of her total Budget upon defence, or 2 per cent. of her gross national product.


I am sure that looking back we all wish those figures then had been very much higher than they were. But America in 1951 is spending 60 per cent. of her Budget on defence and 9 per cent. of her gross national product. That is a figure far higher than the figure for any other country in the world.
I believe there is considerable hope for the Western world and for the maintenance of peace if we in Britain use our wisdom, out poise and our diplomatic skill to guide the United States into the right courses. But I have seen it stated in Congress and the American Press that if America does not get assistance from Europe and ourselves on the course she is taking she will—to use her own expression—have to "Go it alone." I think the idea that America today should "go it alone" in Europe is much too dangerous. It seems to me she is riding her military horses at such a pace that she cannot possibly clear her political fences.
American strategic pressure is being exerted through Spain, Germany, Japan and, to some extent, Yugoslavia. That pressure cannot fail to be associated with the ideological connections of those countries, however much those connections may have been recently reformed. Such associations may well disrupt the central core of moral thought which the Western allies rely upon in their fight against Communism. That central core of moral thought ought to be held intact and ought not to be violated by inapposite political alignments made by the United States.
I do not believe that ideological Communism can be defeated by praying in aid the resources of authoritarian Powers, or of Powers that have recently been authoritarian in character. Communism can and will be defeated by the steady propagation of Western spiritual ideals, suitably protected in moments of counteraction or crisis by armed force. The United States does not need Spain, Germany, Japan and Yugoslavia to prove to Russia and Russia's satellites that our Western way of life is superior to theirs. Those allies that I have mentioned may be useful enough in a hot war. In this cold war, which may well last for several decades to come, they are a positive handicap.
Ideological Communism cannot be defeated in a hot war, even by victory

in a hot war. It can only be defeated in a cold war—that is, a victory through peace, a victory which, because it is achieved through peace, may be all the more renowned. Western Europe has been set back perhaps half a century in the growth of its civilisation by the terrible conflicts that we have come through. It is essential that we should have time to recover our strength, our well being and our natural patriotism as opposed to our enlisted patriotism.
I welcome the words used by the Prime Minister during the Election. This country needs five years or more of calm administration. I welcome his cautious but spacious speech today, and I hope that we shall hear more on those lines. I welcome the great stand for peace by negotiation which has been taken by the Foreign Secretary in Paris. These right hon. Gentlemen are setting high the targets that Britain has to achieve; but I am convinced that they will not attempt to achieve them too quickly or too violently because they realise, I am sure, the danger to peace, and realise also that peace is for Britain as well as for France, whatever one may say about the United States, the only avenue to power and success for many decades to come.

8.37 p.m.

Mr. I. Mikardo: I always have a great deal of sympathy and, indeed, a keen fellow feeling with the noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke). He and I have this in common, that we have on more than one occasion found ourselves at variance with the leaders of our particular parties. Indeed, I would say that I have always found the noble Lord to be far ahead of the leadership of his own party—a comment which I would hesitate to make about myself because it would be immodest, but which, nevertheless, I profoundly believe to be true.
The problems of military tactics and strategy which have been discussed at intervals during the day are matters on which I have no knowledge or first-hand experience, and it would be presumption on my part to attempt to deal with them. I want to confine myself to one aspect of this problem of which, if I may say so. I have some knowledge and experience, namely the manufacture of armaments. That is by no means the least important facet of the defence programme. I


noticed with interest that the Prime Minister dealt with it almost at the very beginning of his speech and reverted to it later.
I think it was the hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Gough), in a pleasing maiden speech, who said, "The man who wins the battle is the man who gits thar fustest with the mostest men." But he overlooked something. It is the man who gets there "fustest with the mostest men equipped with the bestest weapons." In fact, the most competent sailors, the most gallant soldiers and the most intrepid airmen are virtually helpless unless they can be supplied with up-to-date weapons delivered in adequate quantities in the right place and at the right time. The supreme lesson of the last war was that for all the bravery of our serving men and women, in the last issue a long war is won not on the battlefields or even in the air, but in the mines, the factories and the mills.
During the last few months we have had a great deal of discussion about the £4,700 million re-armament programme which was announced at the beginning of the year. At first those who refused to accept that programme were in a small minority, but over the following few months their numbers steadily grew. Now there are comparatively few people—an odd one or two like my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Aston (Mr. Wyatt) who masochistically insists on being unwise after the event—who hang on like grim death to that magic figure of £4,700 million as though it were the gift of Divine revelation, and as though any attempt to call it into question on any grounds is an act of heresy, if not an act of blasphemy.
In fact, this argument about the £4,700 million programme is now settled for all time. It was not settled on the Floor of this House or on the floor of any debating chamber. It was settled on the floors of our engineering factories. It has been settled not as a result of political disputation but as a result of the indisputable evidence of what is happening today in our engineering industry. We had some considerable discussion of these matters in our last defence debate towards the end of July, but since then, for one good reason or another, we have not had much more hard information

provided either by the last Government or by the present Government.
I want to address a number of specific questions on this subject to the right hon. Gentleman who is to reply for the Government. I hope that a Government which prides itself on not hiding anything from the people will not refuse to answer my specific questions. In the first place, we are entitled to ask what has been the percentage rise in the cost of the items in the re-armament programme since that programme was planned. We know that the figure of £4,700 million took into account some projected price rise. We were not told how much.
What I am now asking is what rise in prices there has been over and above the price rise which was budgeted for in the original figure of £4,700 million. To put the question in another way, what I am now asking is how fewer arms we shall get for an expenditure of £4,700 million than we originally expected to get for the expenditure of that sum.
Secondly, I ask the Government to tell us by how many months the arms programme has already fallen behind schedule. The Prime Minister himself admitted that it has fallen behind schedule, but he was careful not to tell us by how much. I know—and, indeed, there is no longer any secret about it—that we are having grave difficulties about machine tools.
In a speech which I made here on 23rd July, I ventured to suggest that even then there were signs that the machine tool programme was falling rapidly out of gear, but the then Minister of Supply, my right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. G. R. Strauss), challenged my statement and said that while some items were falling behind, others were doing well, and that there was no danger to the whole programme. I think my right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall now knows, and with his customary generosity will be ready to admit, that on that occasion he was wrong and I was right, and that on average the programme is now quite seriously in arrears. I ask the Government spokesman who is to reply to tell us by how much it is in arrears.
There is one question I want to ask on machine tools, and it concerns the 40 million dollars worth of machine tools which we were told we were to get from


the United States of America. There has been a good deal of resentment on the part of the American engineering industry at their having to wait for American machine tools because of the allocation of 40 million dollars worth of their tools to British industry. American armament manufacturers have put considerable pressure on the American Defence Department and on the American machine tool industry, and that pressure cannot fail to result in slowing down the supply of American machine tools to us.
Moreover, they have reacted to the loss of their own machine tools to British industry by running all over the Continent and pre-empting machine tool capacity which we ourselves had hoped to get and on which we had built up our own £4,700 million programme. On this point I want to ask a specific question of the right hon. Gentleman who is to reply. It is: by how much are the deliveries of these American machine tools to us falling short of the original plan?
Perhaps we can also have some statement about the degree of dislocation which has been caused in the British engineering industries by the too rapid injection of a too large programme without adequate planning or phasing. This is something which the Prime Minister admitted and what he himself called congestion—the congestion of the armaments industry.

Mr. George Wigg: Indigestion.

Mr. Mikardo: Indigestion, was it? It is, at any rate, the trouble from which they are suffering. Of course, the Prime Minister would not face the logic of his argument, which was that if they have got indigestion by being given too big a meal too quickly, then the best thing is to ease off the rate at which they are being supplied with orders. There is a great deal of dislocation and a tremendous loss of production.
The hon. Member for Hendon, North (Mr. C. I. Orr-Ewing) gave the House from his direct personal knowledge some most interesting examples of one of the causes of this dislocation. It is, as he pointed out, the fact that the user Departments specify too rigid, too high, too perfect specifications for the goods they want. I would say this to the hon. Member, however, if he were here: that

that has always been a characteristic of the Service Departments. The hon. Member for Hendon, North, is now a manufacturer of Service equipment. During the war, as a serving officer, he was a user of Service equipment and I was then a maker. I can tell him that even in the great stress of war it was still true that we had tremendous hold-ups through Service users specifying too rigid specifications for equipment.
We designed aircraft in order to have a nice streamline but, before the user Department had finished with it, it was slung around with lumps and bumps and knobs and bobs like a Christmas tree and we never knew where we were. There was always this difficulty—that things were being modified a hundred times in order to reach perfection, so that at one time the aircraft industry had to tell the Ministry of Aircraft Production, "Either you have some imperfect planes and get some or you have your perfect planes and get none at all."
That characteristic which the hon. Gentleman described has always been a failing, and not merely in the last year or two, but that is not the principal reason for the dislocation in our manufacturing industry. The principal reason is what the right hon. Gentleman, the Prime Minister, called "indigestion." It is congestion, it is trying to bung in too much too quickly, at a rate at which it cannot be absorbed.
When I last ventured to address the House on this subject I tried to describe some of the technical tasks which are involved in programming a production flow. I think I showed—certainly I tried to show—that one effect of launching into a large programme too rapidly is that none of the technical tasks of timing and phasing and flow can be properly carried out.
There is nothing recondite about this. It is a familiar point. It is a simple point. It is exactly the same point often made in housing debates, namely, that if we start too many houses at once we are likely to get fewer finished than if we had started fewer. It is exactly the same point every housewife faces when she goes to cook her Christmas dinner—and I say this as one who has done some carefully planned operation studies in a kitchen in working out a planned programme for cooking a Christmas dinner.
Any housewife will tell this House that if she tries to overload a small gas cooker by putting into production all at once the soup, the turkey, the potatoes and other vegetables, and the Christmas pudding, she will not get finished till night. [HON. MEMBERS: "There is not all that for Christmas."] I was talking about last Christmas. In fact, there are some real parallels in this homely analogy with the case of the housewife. The last item goes into production first, because the pudding takes a longer time to steam; whereas the potatoes are not put in till much later, because they take a shorter time, and because they spoil if they are finished a long time before their actual production is required.
In exactly the same way machine tools for the last process in a chain of operations sometimes need to be put into manufacture before the machine tools for earlier processes, because they take longer to make; and if one tries to put out all machine tool orders at once the timing of the whole programme, of the whole job, gets completely out of gear. There is no doubt whatever that a good deal of this sort of thing has been going on for some time and is going on now, not because the planning engineers are incompetent, but only because they have been asked to do too much at once.
The Prime Minister has already admitted it. It had to be dragged out of him, but he admitted very reluctantly, very grudgingly, with bad grace, that my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) had been right all the time. The Prime Minister has admitted that, in fact, there is not the least chance of our producing in three years the real defence resources which it was planned to produce in these three years.
Again I ask a specific question of the right hon. Gentleman who is to reply to the debate. I ask him to tell us what percentage of the three-year programme we shall actually get, not in money terms but in real terms. What percentage of the three-year programme shall we actually get by the end of the three years? Or, to put the same question another way, I ask him, how many years will it actually take to produce the real resources—not merely to spend the money: any fool can spend money—how many years will it actually take him to produce the real resources which we

planned to produce in three years? Will it take four, or will it take five years, or will it take more than five years to produce the arms which we originally planned to produce in three?
I hope I am not being cynical if I say that I do not expect to get any clear answer from the Government to this battery of precise and specific questions which I have directed at the right hon. Gentleman. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman, if he refers to my questions at all, will make some general bromide pronouncement that he cannot accept all my assumptions, and that the picture is not as black' as I have painted it. However, that really will not do from a Government who believe in telling the people all the facts—or, at least, who say they believe in telling the people all the facts. Therefore, I propose in a moment or two to answer my own questions from my own knowledge of what is going on in British industry, and to produce my own figures.
If the Government wish to dispute my conclusions they can do so by giving what they believe to be the right figures. In the first place, it is now commonly believed that the average price rise in armament expenditure is 15 per cent. greater than what was projected when the programme was launched, and, undoubtedly, the figure will rise beyond 15 per cent. between now and the end of the programme.
If this figure of 15 per cent. is applied to the figure of £4,700 million, we see that roughly speaking we are to get for an expenditure of £4,700 million such defence resources as were originally planned to cost a little more than £4,000 million, and, of course, as the figure rises above 15 per cent., so the figure of £4,000 million worth of armaments got for £4,700 million will continue to fall over the three years, and what we shall get will be far short of what we planned to get.
Secondly, with regard to machine tools, we have so far not received much more than one-quarter of the American machine tools which were due to be delivered to us up to the present time. It is my belief that the whole machine tool programme is running at present from four to six months behind schedule, and it is only about one year since the programme started, so if it is already four to six months behind schedule, goodness


knows how far it will be behind schedule when we get into the third year.
Taking these factors into account, and adding the present dislocation due to hidden unemployment in the engineering shops, to short-time working, to materials hold-up and shortages of labour and immobility of labour, I am satisfied that we shall not get the programme originally planned for three years in less than five years. I believe quite firmly that if we had planned that £4,700 million programme for four years we could have got it in four years, but the very act of planning it for three years has made sure that we will not get it in less than five.
These are the sort of considerations that I had in mind when I said that the argument about the £4,700 million programme is no longer a political argument and no longer a matter of political disputation, but a matter of machines and of steel. The Government may now just as well come clean with the country, and admit that the £4,700 million programme is as dead as Queen Anne; in fact, it is deader because it was never really born.
The Prime Minister has always insisted that we should "Tell the people." Here is tie right hon. Gentleman's chance. He can now tell the people where we really stand. Once we free ourselves from the shibboleth of this unreal figure of £4,700 million, we can start to think things out afresh. Until we do so, our defence effort and all our defence plans are based on a mirage.

8.59 p.m.

Mr. E. Shinwell: This debate has been conducted in a subdued atmosphere, and I have no desire to raise the temperature, but it is only fair to say that the speech of the right hon. Gentleman at the outset of the debate was something in the nature of an anticlimax, by which I mean that we got away from the criticisms which prevailed over many months, indeed, years, before the present Government came to office.
During the General Election, to take an example, many hon. Members on the other side of the House, and, indeed, some right hon. Gentlemen—I will not particularise—declared that the late Government's defence policy displayed a large measure of incompetence and inefficiency. They were at great pains to

indicate that if they were returned to power they would be able to provide greater efficiency and more value for the money expended. I am bound to say that although the right hon. Gentleman did insinuate defects in our defence policy, he produced no evidence of any deficiency, certainly none of incompetence, because he appeared to approve of the defence policy of the late Government, and precious little of waste.
I will agree at once, if it will placate hon. Members on the other side of the House and others who may be concerned in this matter, that when we are dealing with an expenditure of several thousands of millions of pounds, and, in particular, when there is a wide divergence as between research and development on the one hand and actual production on the other, there is bound to be some waste. Indeed, any Government coming into power and conducting an investigation will discover a measure of waste. When I was at the Ministry of Defence I directed attention repeatedly to the subject of wasteful expenditure. In my view there were far too many frills which ought to have been cut out.
In the view of the War Office—and this was encouraged by my right hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Strachey)—it was essential to devise some means of cutting down the tail of the army. We did everything possible in that direction. Among other things we set up a committee of inquiry under a high-ranking officer of considerable repute who had our confidence, and who, I believe, has since furnished a very useful report. A great deal might be said about this, but I content myself by saying that we lost no opportunity of eliminating waste.
As I remarked, and as, indeed, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said, the Prime Minister did not appear to disapprove of our general policy in the sphere of defence. I want to say at once that I am the last person—I cannot speak for others—to take any credit for what happened. The credit is primarily due to the co-operation that was evoked between the Chiefs of Staff, the civil Departments, the military staffs, and—here I want to add this, because I think it is time there was a word of tribute paid to them—the civil servants.
We could not have undertaken the very onerous and difficult tasks that faced us—the Prime Minister will agree that the tasks are difficult in the sphere of defence, particularly as we are engaged in the preparation for a defence build-up—effectively and with a measure of efficiency if it had not been for the endeavours of the technicians and scientists associated with the Defence Research Board. Sir Henry Tizard, Sir Frederick Brundrett, and a great many others whose names I cannot recall, all deserve our tribute. It was a co-operative effort in which Ministers joined to the best of their ability. I would make no apology either for myself or for my right hon. Friends who were associated with me, or for the military and civil staff, for what has happened in the last few years.
The right hon. Gentleman might have accused us of one defect—if it can be described as a defect. He might have argued that we did not display sufficient enthusiasm for defence.

The Prime Minister: No.

Mr. Shinwell: I know there have been some criticisms to the effect that Labour is not interested in defence matters. My reply is this: although we regarded preparation and organisation of defence as essential in present circumstances, we never undertook the task with any enthusiasm. We disliked it intensely, but it was a task that had to be undertaken, in our view. We would infinitely prefer to pursue the tasks associated with the diplomatic sphere, to conduct negotiations, to consult with other countries, to pursue the tasks of peace rather than to undertake the tasks imposed upon us by defence preparations.
I repeat that in our view the task of preparing the defence organisation was necessary, not because of the threat of war—in that respect I agree with the Prime Minister—but because, in face of the threat to peace which undoubtedly exists, some measure of defence was essential. That is my view. I do not want to occupy too much time in this debate, so I shall turn to what I regard as the vital considerations. I would say, in passing, that I was much interested in the speech of the hon. Member for Hendon, North (Mr. C. I. Orr-Ewing), on the subject of electronics. I urge upon

him to press upon his right hon. Friends on that Bench to do everything they possibly can to speed up the production of the necessary electronics. It is one of the most vital elements in our defence preparations.
They will discover how difficult the task was, not because we were not anxious to apply ourselves, but because of the lack of technicians and of materials, and—to some extent I agree here with the hon. Gentleman—because of the somewhat elaborate planning that takes place. One of the greatest difficulties was always this. The researchers came along, with the designers, and we got into the development sphere. Before we could get into production the designers had second thoughts and so had the researchers, and there was an immediate lag. How that is to be dealt with I do not know. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will be more successful in dealing with these people than some of us were.
I would refer to the very interesting and constructive speech—in some respects—of my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, South (Mr. Mikardo), but I am bound to say that it seemed to me that he was urging that it would be impossible to spend £4,700 million because of rising prices and difficulties likely to be encountered. The logical conclusion was that if we were to enter into the sphere of defence with any hope of success we ought to be spending more than £4,700 million. That is how it struck me. Perhaps my logic is at fault, but I leave it at that.
I now come to the controversy about the £4,700 million. I should like to try to explain it. How did we arrive at the figure of £4,700 million? It arose in this fashion. We are associated with the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. We were formerly associated with the Brussels Treaty Organisation and the Western Defence Union. Plans were conceived and presented, and every country associated with those bodies was asked to state its requirements, along with the general defence needs of the West and also taking into account the national commitments with which we in this country, France, and so on, are familiar.
In consultation with our military and technical advisers, we proceeded to consider what our requirements were, and we came to the conclusion that our


national requirements, plus our contribution to Western defence, amounted to a very much larger figure than £4,700 million over a period of three years.
Incidentally, why did we talk about "three years"? It was because, in the opinion of the planners—not only the planners in this country but also the international planners with whom we were associated—that 1954 was the danger point. That is what they said. I never agreed with that. Hon. Members will recall that in defence debates I frequently directed attention to the critical years of 1951 and 1952, and I hold by that even now.
We whittled down the larger sum. We came to the conclusion that this country could not afford it. We knew we could hardly afford £4,700 million in the course of three years, and, as my right hon. Friend has said over and over again, we could offer no guarantee that we could expend the £4,700 million in the course of three years, for the obvious reason that we knew that there would be a shortage of raw materials, machine tools, and, in particular—this has not been referred to as it ought to have been, but it will have to be referred to over and over again—manpower.

The Prime Minister: Yes.

Mr. Shinwell: I tell hon. Members that they can get all the raw materials and all the machine tools that they require, but if they have not the requisite manpower and organise it effectively they will not be able to achieve success in their defence organisation. Manpower is perhaps the primary consideration.
I have explained how the figure of £4,700 million emerged over the three-year period, but we knew very well that it would be very difficult to expend that sum. My hon. Friend the Member for Reading, South, labours under a misapprehension. At any rate, there certainly appears to be some misunderstanding. When we speak of £4,700 million or, as the Prime Minister spoke today, of the current year's estimate of £1,250 million, that does not account for production. The production element in those figures is a much smaller sum.
For example, I doubt if the production figure for the whole of the Service Estimates, the whole of our defence expenditure, this year will amount to more than

£450 million, and over the whole of the three years, or it may be four years or longer, the production element in the £4,700 million will be about £2,000 million. That is the position, and that puts the matter in its right perspective.
Before I direct attention to what I regard as the principal task facing the right hon. Gentleman, I should like to deal with two matters which I believe to be unimportant but which, nevertheless, excite controversy. The less important subjects frequently excite the most controversy. The two unimportant subjects are that of the.280 rifle and ammunition and that of whether an American should be the Supreme Commander in the Atlantic.
I just want to say this about the rifle. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman is not going to Washington in a bargaining spirit. I hope he is not going to allow the Americans to "put it across him," anyhow. Let me tell him at once that we had it out with our technical experts and all the other experts. I have not the least doubt that our experts were right. As hon. Members have said, our rifle—it is not in production, of course; it is only in its very early stages—is obviously the best rifle that has yet been produced. The Americans have seven million of their existing Garand rifles, and they propose to produce a new rifle, which will take them four, five, six or perhaps, seven years—note the seven years, which was mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman—in relation to our proposed new rifle. It will take them a long time before they produce it.
Where do the Canadians come in? The Canadians are not interested whether it is the.280 or the American Garand rifle or whether it is the American modified, improved rifle. Their only concern, and quite rightly, because they have the industrial capacity, is whether they are to get the opportunity of producing the rifle. That is their position. The Canadians were as much on our side at Washington as they were on the side of the Americans.
The only people who were not on our side were the French, but then, they expect to get heaps and heaps of material from the United States, and it does not lie in their mouths to make any objection when the Americans say that they want something. I understand that—it is a materialistic view, a realistic view. Any-


how, we have got the best rifle, and the Americans know it quite well, and in the user trials we demonstrated that. Anyway, I do not like turning our experts down, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will think more than once before he does so. But it is not a very important matter. Standardisation is is much more important, but it is much more difficult to achieve.
Now, about the Supreme Commander of the Atlantic. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that we did not come to that decision alone. It was a decision reached collectively by 12 nations associated with the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. Twelve nations in solemn conclave agreed that it should be an American who should be promoted to the supreme command of the Atlantic.

The Prime Minister: The Prime Minister indicated dissent.

Mr. Shinwell: That is the position. Of course, I know that the right hon. Gentleman sometimes—not always, but occasionally—elevates himself above solemn conclaves and things of that sort.

The Prime Minister: Four or five of those 12 nations that all had equal voting powers with us had, I think, hardly any war vessels at all except those we had given or leased to them.

Mr. Shinwell: I should not make a meal of that. The Prime Minister's right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary told us that the North Atlantic Council was to meet at Lisbon shortly. There is not much in Portugal in the way of defence organisation—small blame to them. I would not say too much about that.
However, I want to come to what I regard as the main point: the question of building up defence in the West. I have with me—I prepared it because I thought the right hon. Gentleman was going to make a controversial speech—a whole lot of extracts from his speeches. What is more, it is all my own work. They are very interesting and intriguing. However, they may come in handy at some other time, when the right hon. Gentleman is in a more controversial mood. But the right hon. Gentleman—I must quote this—

The Prime Minister: Can I have them?

Mr. Shinwell: No, these are not Cabinet documents, but they are all extracted from the OFFICIAL REPORT.

The right hon. Gentleman said on 12th September last year—and this bears on the subject of European defence as indicating what was in his mind:
We have to form, as fast as possible, a European army of at least 60 or 70 divisions to make some sort of front in Europe. …
He went on to say—I was astonished at the time, but I had to conceal my astonishment for various reasons:
Since these matters were last debated in this House, in March, the French have resolved to contribute 20 divisions, I understand, but it may be 15 divisions. I rejoice to see the famous French Army lift itself again into the vanguard of freedom.
He repeated that today, but I know that does not matter as originality is not always the strong point of the right hon. Gentleman. He went on:
There should certainly be 10 divisions from the United States, two or three from Canada and six or eight from this island … Germany and Italy should also contribute eight or 10 divisions apiece and the Benelux countries … at least four … so here are 60 or 70 divisions. …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th September, 1950; Vol. 478, c. 985–6.]
That was a target.

The Prime Minister: That was what?

Mr. Shinwell: That was a target. The right hon. Gentleman has heard of targets before in other connections, but this is not the appropriate occasion for discussing that kind of target. However, that was a target. Obviously, unless we have a very large number of divisions organised and made battleworthy in the West it will not even prove to be an effective deterrent.
What is the position at present? The position is that we are the only country in the North Atlantic Organisation which has lived up to its promises. I challenge anyone on that issue. When we had discussions at the North Atlantic Treaty Council, on the Defence Committee and on various other occasions—bilateral discussions with the French, and so on—I said to them over and over again, "Tell us what you think we ought to contribute and we will do our best to face up to it."
I have said over and over again to General Eisenhower personally, "If you want anything more from us ask for it and we will do our best to provide it" We have never been asked to do more than we have yet provided. We have lived up to every promise we made. I


wish that could be said of the other countries. I would be quite frank about this. After all is said and done, we are accepting a tremendous burden in this £4,700 million programme. I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friends and, indeed, with many in the country, who say this imposes sacrifices and burdens on our people. It is a very harsh business indeed.
I am all in favour of accepting burdens and even asking people in the country to accept them if other countries are prepared to play their part. I saw a statement in the Press yesterday to the effect that the Belgian Finance Minister, Mr. Van Hoote, declared that his country was not prepared to increase their armament expenditure because it would impose burdens on its national economy. If every country says that, we shall have no defence organisation worth anything.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: We would be safer.

Mr. Shinwell: That is a pacifist view which I can understand. I respect the convictions of the hon. Member, and have said it over and over again, but it is not the view of the Labour Party.

Mr. Hughes: That is the trouble.

Mr. Shinwell: It may be the hon. Member's trouble, but that is our view. We believe that some measure of defence is essential. We wish it was unnecessary, we regard it as a necessary evil, we deplore it, but, the situation being as it is, there appears no escape at present. But, simultaneously, we must pursue the necessary tasks in the diplomatic field.
I wish to suggest to the right hon. Gentleman, first of all, that this is the danger I see in European defence. General Eisenhower has a very difficult task facing him, a very difficult task indeed. I can understand why General Eisenhower has now directed attention to the subject of a European Army. I doubt whether he would ever have done it if there had been a reasonable prospect of substantial Forces emerging from the various countries associated with the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.
This proposal for a European Army was, to some extent, an afterthought. I do not discourage it; I hope it succeeds. And if it does, it may be, as my right hon. Friend said, that at some time we may require to be associated with it. I do

not object to it although I am bound to say, taking a more realistic view, that I do not believe that a European Army can be really effective unless we get some kind of European political unity. In fact, I believe—and this is a personal view which I do not ask anyone to share—that European political unity is the prerequisite to effective European defence. If we take European political unity as a prelude to European economic unity it may be that it will lead to a solution in the diplomatic sphere; but that is merely conjecture on my part.
What I think it is to which the right hon. Gentleman must address himself, if I may put it in that way—I do so quite sincerely—is that he must direct his attention to the slow build-up, and I emphasise the word slow, of Forces in the West. Whoever is to blame, whatever is to blame, is, for the moment, beside the point. Unless these Forces are built up speedily—it is no use talking about 1954, or 1955, or 1956, and so on—it seems to me that we are taking an unfair advantage of the presence of General Eisenhower in Europe; indeed, it is an insult to his intelligence and to his reputation.
The second thing is that the discussions are far too protracted. There is far too much talk and too little action—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—I may as well tell Members opposite that nobody has tried to urge speedier action on the French and the Belgians and my other former colleagues in the defence departments in those countries than I have done. I got myself into trouble all along the line—which did not worry me in the least so long as I got something done. And I say that if the right hon. Gentleman talks in the same way to his colleagues in those countries I have no doubt that he will get himself into trouble too.
The right hon. Gentleman must surely be aware that the present situation in the Far East has an impact, a direct bearing, on the situation in the West. If there is no armistice in the Far East, if the war there is prolonged, and if it extends into Malaya, and in an intensified form in Indo-China, and so on, the danger in the West becomes more acute, for this reason: The United States will not be able to provide the equipment which is essential to build up the French and other armies in the West. That is a great


danger. The further point is—and I have no doubt the right hon. Gentleman has it in mind—a possible change in United States policy, if the countries of the West do not show their mettle in the building up of Forces. These are very great dangers.
I have occupied all the time I can—[Laughter.]—I cannot understand what the laughter is about. I do not want to proceed, because I understand the right hon. Gentleman wishes to answer a lot of questions. I would summarise what I have said. We of the Labour Party accept the need for defence preparations, because at present there appears to be no satisfactory alternative. But, simultaneously, we must direct attention to the need for promoting peace in the diplomatic sphere. If we are building up a defence organisation let us see that we build an effective and an efficient one as rapidly as possible.
I wish it were unnecessary. It may well be, as has been said so often, that Soviet Russia does not desire war. It may be that nobody desires war. On the other hand, it may be that an incident may occur which may lead to war. That is the danger which faces us. In those circumstances, it is better to have a strong defence than to be in so weak a position that we can neither provide a deterrent against war nor deal with the situation which may arise.

The Prime Minister: May I ask the indulgence of the House to intervene for a very few moments before my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War replies to the particular questions that have been asked?
I should not like—if the House would permit me—the speech of the late Minister of Defence to go without its due and proper acknowledgement from this side of the House. We have our party battles and bitterness, and the great balance of the nation is maintained to some extent by our quarrels, but I have always felt and have always testified, even in moments of party strife, to the right hon. Gentleman's sterling patriotism and to the fact that his heart is in the right place where the life and strength of our country were concerned.
Tonight, he has made a speech which was the most statesmanlike, if he will allow me to say so, as I have heard him

make in this House in these days that we have gone through. He has surveyed the whole field in terms from which I do not think we should differ.
We have our differences, and, when we were in Opposition, it was our duty to point out the things that we thought were not done right, and it is equally his duty, and that of those who sit with him, to subject us to an equally searching examination. I am so glad to be able to say tonight, in these very few moments, that the spirit which has animated the right hon. Gentleman in the main discharge of his great duties was one which has, in peace as well as in war, added to the strength and security of our country.

9.32 p.m.

The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Antony Head): After the tribute which has just been paid to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) by my right hon. Friend, anything I say will, I fear, come as something of an anti-climax, but I should like to say myself that I welcome his remarks very much, and I do not think he will mind my saying that, in comparison with some recent occasions on which we faced one another across this Box, this has been like an April day on snow. Everything the right hon. Gentleman said about the general policy of defence was, I think, in the main, welcomed by the majority of Members of the House.
This has not been, as my right hon. Friend has said, a stormy debate. I think it has covered the usual form which defence debates take in this House, in that it has been concerned with policy, with manpower and with production. If I were to make any comment on the general form of the debate, I would say that the aspect which distinguishes it particularly is that there has been really very little mention of the very important question of manpower, and, in my first remarks, I want to suggest to the House that, however good our rearmament programme, however successful this very fine equipment may be, it is of little avail unless the manpower in the Services is of the best quality and well trained.
Everybody is aware of the splendid quality of the National Service men, but this splendid intake, which has done so well, cannot be used to the fullest extent unless the proportion of Regulars is


adequate to deal with them. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman opposite will agree with me that one of the big problems in the Services now is to maintain and do everything we can to stimulate Regular recruiting.
There are now, both in the Royal Air Force and in the Army—which, I think, are more particularly concerned than the Royal Navy—schemes which do, in effect, make of these Services a very attractive career, not only financially, but in the conditions of service, which allow men to break their service at very frequent intervals, and, at the same time, should they wish to do so, to remain in that career until 55 and draw a pension and gratuity at the end of their service. That is a fact which is, I think, too little known to the general public.
I want to attempt, so far as I am able, to answer some of the points which came up in the speeches during this debate. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition did, I think, rather accuse my right hon. Friend that in his speech there was a lack of criticism of the Government's policy during the past six years. Perhaps it would be better if I described it as a statement of the fact and not as an accusation. I do not wish to be controversial, but I think it only fair to point out to the Prime Minister—[Laughter.]—I mean to the Leader of the Opposition, and I make a two-way apology for this mistake—that a great many aspects of the Government's defence policy, namely, N.A.T.O., formed to a large extent at Fulton, German re-armament, and, indeed, the European Army, were first raised by my right hon. Friend.
All these were initiated—and surely there can be no argument about it—by my right hon. Friend. It is, in a way, inviting him to criticise his own action to criticise the Government's policy in that respect. Indeed, on a more humble plane—and I think the right hon. Gentleman the ex-Minister of Defence will agree, a great many of the suggestions regarding the changes in the period of National Service and the increase in pay also came from our side of the House when we sat on the benches opposite.
As I say, I do not wish to be controversial, but I think the Leader of the Opposition will agree with me that many aspects of these matters did come from our side of the House, and that, therefore,

it is not up to us to criticise them now. The Leader of the Opposition also said that he did not entirely approve of the conception by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister of the hedgehog type of defence in these islands. He rather inferred in his remarks that the hedgehog should be as far back as possible in order to keep any potential attacker as far away as could be in terms of depth and distance.
That is absolutely true, and I am sure it is agreed on this side of the House as well. But I think that what was in the mind of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was that there should be a hedgehog at home and a porcupine in Europe, a policy of not concentrating all the prickles in these islands alone. The Leader of the Opposition also mentioned that he hoped, as far as the rifle was concerned, that the best side would win.
But in the short time that I have been at the War Office and from the conversations I have had it is my opinion that to hope that the best rifle may win by an entirely impartial judgment of Paris between two nations intensely proud of their productive capacity and inventive skill is a very pious hope It seems to me that if my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister were, perhaps, an American technician concerned with inventing rifles, even he might have some prejudice concerning the production which he had made possible.

Mr. Wyatt: We have been willing to accept and have, in fact, accepted American weapons when they have been shown to be better than ours. Surely it is about time that they accepted one of ours for a change.

Mr. Head: I was only attempting to point out that being certain that the best weapon won was not always easily achieved in the circumstances with which we are now confronted.
I am sure that the whole House would join with me in congratulating the hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Gough) on his maiden speech. When I made a note on my paper to congratulate the hon. Member I looked at the name and felt something was wrong. I then realised that we are all so used to having the noble Lord, Earl Winterton, representing Horsham. All I can say to the hon. Member is that I am sure his predecessor would have been extremely pleased if he had heard his speech. I am sure


we all congratulate him and we hope that we shall hear very much from him in future. If we hear from him as much as we heard from the noble Lord I am sure we shall hear very much.
The hon. Member referred to preparedness and to the fact that we as a nation had the reputation of losing every battle except the last one. I would point out to him that this is really the first time that this country or the democracies as a whole have made attempts to prepare themselves for this contingency in time, entirely as a deterrent. It is my belief that perhaps for the first time in our history we are clear of the charge of unpreparedness and of not taking any action in sufficient time to prevent a war.
The hon. Member for Aston (Mr. Wyatt) made a courageous and helpful speech, if I may say so. I hope I am not embarrassing him. I must confess I felt some parts of his speech were directed towards some of his hon. Friends. There are certain types of waterpistol which can be used to hit one's neighbour. I thought I saw a slight squirt going in the direction of the hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman) at times, but I may be wrong. Nevertheless, I thought the hon. Member made a very constructive speech. It would be quite wrong of me to claim credit for that speech on the part of the War Office where I now reside, but I must say the hon. Member covered some important points in a very helpful and constructive manner.
The hon. Member mentioned the point that he feared my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister might go to America and enter into a special type of Anglo-American relationship. I was not quite sure what the hon. Member was implying. Perhaps he meant that there was need to settle matters of strategy as speedily as possible from a global point of view. But I think one of our defects recently has been that we have been apt to regard the cold war in a parochial way, as to whether it concerns N.A.T.O. and Europe and that the remaining arrangements in the Far East and the Middle East have been settled with less of a united front ad hoc and with less consideration of matters from a global point of view. I believe that only good can come of any progress which enables

anybody to consider our strategy of cold war as a whole and not primarily with regard to N.A.T.O.
The hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) devoted a good deal of attention to the new rifle. He referred to the immense rapidity of fire of the new weapon. I must enter a caveat here that rapidity of fire in a rifle is not always an absolute asset in war. Unless there is very good discipline, you have a dark night and a few noises and before you know where you are tomorrow's ammunition is gone.
The hon. Member for West Ham, South (Mr. Elwyn Jones) made some rather unfortunate remarks concerning his interview with German generals and others. I do not wish to take sides or attempt to judge in these matters, but I also went to Germany and talked with many Germans. I think that when one discusses these things with Germans who are doing their best for their country under very delicate and difficult conditions it is unwise to quote to the House from private conversations things which cannot have been said to the hon. Member for repetition, judging by what he told the House this afternoon.

Mr. Elwyn Jones: I assure the right hon. Gentleman that there was no kind of indication on my part that the conversations were otherwise than for the purposes of publication. I made that quite clear, and therefore, if I may say so, his implied taunt was quite unjustified in the circumstances. I also owe a duty to my country to say what I heard.

Mr. Head: The hon. Gentleman may be right, but the only foundation for the remarks I made is that I, too, have had conversations with some of the people concerned, and it was my impression that they very much regret any possibility of the kind of remarks they made being stated in debate in the House of Commons. However, my impression may be wrong.
I should like particularly to congratulate—not because he is on my own side of the House—my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North (Mr. C. I. Orr-Ewing), for an exceptionally constructive and enjoyable speech. I know that all hon. Members who were in the House at the time will agree that his knowledge of the subject made a very valuable con-


tribution to the debate. I can give this undertaking, that so far as my own Department is concerned—and I believe I can give it on behalf of other Departments—the kind of remarks he made in order to simplify staff requirements from a production point of view are of intense importance, particularly at a time of rising prices, shortage of materials and the necessity for speeding up production.
I am aware, as are I think all hon. Members who have been concerned with production, that perhaps we as a nation are inclined to err towards what I might term the Cartier watch specification for equipment. Of course, we have to have good equipment—I see the Leader of the Opposition is rather shocked at my remarks—but there are certain refinements which can sometimes be sacrificed. By and large, we are apt to go for such a high standard and such refinements that when war comes large quantities of equipment may be lost or destroyed by shellfire and other means, the cost becomes high and the numbers produced are thereby decreased.
I also agree very strongly with my hon. Friend about his remarks on our technical manpower. It is, indeed, one of the most important assets we have, and if the hon. Gentleman can give me any ideas or advice on how, to get more technical manpower into the Army I will spend endless time with him on this subject which, at the moment, is a very difficult and important one for the Army.
We had a speech from the hon. Member for Reading, South (Mr. Mikardo)—it would perhaps be wrong of me to attempt in any way to dodge it—in which he asked four questions. Then, to my enjoyment, he went on to answer the four questions himself. I am not pretending that that entirely absolves me, but he did it on the assumption that I would not answer those four questions. I think that his assumption was not entirely unfounded. It was founded, I think, on a good deal of knowledge of the subjects on which he was talking.
The hon. Gentleman knows quite well that if I were to give him precise answers to those four questions—even supposing I could, if the information were available anywhere—they would be read with very considerable interest by a great many people whom we would rather leave in ignorance of the answers to those ques-

tions. I am not sheltering behind the veil of security, but I venture to say that the hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that I could not give a categorical answer to those questions.
I would, however, say this. As far as machine tools are concerned I think that the hon. Gentleman is overstressing the delays to date concerning machine tools. I am not suggesting for a moment that they will not come in the future, but at the present moment I do not think the difficulties encountered owing to the shortage of machine tools is as grave as the hon. Gentleman suggested.
The hon. Member for Reading, South, went on to refer to certain matters raised by the Prime Minister in what my right hon. Friend called the "indigestion" of our productive capacity because of the large amount of money which had suddenly been spent and the large number of orders placed. He said the machine was incapable of dealing with the situation with such rapidity. The hon. Member for Reading, South, gave his solution to the problem entirely in terms of timing. He used the analogy of cooking and rather tended to suggest that Mrs. Beaton would have made a very good Minister of Supply.
It is not easy, in placing orders or getting things started, to say "we will not even place an order or make a start, and then everything will come out together." If re-armament takes place, there is always a tendency to place the orders and to allow preparations to start. After all, we never know; we might suddenly blunder into war, and to have sufficient restraint to retain some orders for which capacity exists would, I think, perhaps be unwise and would not be a normal method of entering upon a rearmament programme.

Mr. Mikardo: I accept at once the point which the right hon. Gentleman is making—that it has always been the case, whenever there has been re-armament, that all the orders have been pushed out at once. But I beg the right hon. Gentleman to believe that the Service Departments, and the Ministry of Supply, operating on their behalf, are the only ordering organisations in British industry who make this elementary mistake. Why cannot they catch up with the practice of the rest of Briitsh industry?

Mr. Head: I think the hon. Member will appreciate that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Supply is just starting to sort things out, and although I do not wish to dodge the hon. Gentleman's argument, I think his criticisms are aimed more at my right hon. Friend's predecessors than at the present Minister.

Mr. Mikardo: Yes, and his 20 predecessors.

Mr. Head: The hon. Member for Preston, South (Mr. Shackleton) referred to the present aircraft position. Apart from the reference, and from a very brief reference by the Prime Minister, the question of aircraft production was not touched on very strongly during the debate. It is, however, the case, as the Prime Minister said when he opened the debate, that this aspect of the programme is one which gives very great cause for anxiety. The reasons are both complex and to some extent deep-seated, but it is a fact that the present aircraft position is one about which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Air is extremely worried. It is also one which it will take considerable difficulty and time to improve.
What I would point out to the hon. Gentleman, who also made reference to Coastal Command, is that the wide field of aircraft production, which ranges from Coastal Command, through transport aircraft to fighters, and so on, involves a question of fitting in first things first. I know that from one's own personal point of view, one has a predilection for such things as transport aircraft for airborne brigades and for helicopters for the evacuation of the wounded, and so on, but one cannot be a chooser in these things, and particular requirements have to wait until the primary needs have been met.
I think hon. Members will agree that not only before the Government but also before the country there lies a formidable task in the fulfilment of the rearmament programme. It entails not only considerable skill and ingenuity in ensuring that the vast amount of money to be spent on orders is not only placed but placed in an economic manner, but it also inevitably brings with it certain

difficulties from the purely political angle. I am merely saying that to fit in one's armament programme without undue dislocation of one's own economy is a complex matter and a very difficult one to make a judgment upon.
I think it is fair to say that there are no votes in re-armament, and it is really a difficult and troublesome duty for any political party to ensure that this programme is driven through, and that the necessary sacrifices in the economic position are made. I believe that it is a particularly good thing that in this debate—the first defence debate of this new Parliament—there has been a marked lack of bitterness or party politics.
I feel myself very strongly, I assure the House, that if we turn defence into a party political issue we have very little chance of making a job of it, because where democracies are concerned there is always the alternative, for any democracy, to vote for an easy present at the cost of a risky future. There is always the possibility open to any politician to go before the country and say, "This is unnecessary. It is a waste of your money. The burdens are unnecessary. If you do the sensible thing you will have lower taxes and a better life today. As it is, these burdens are being inflicted without due cause."
That will always be, and always has been, attractive to democracies. The capacity of politicians to appeal to that side has been our Achilles heel, I suggest, before two wars. It was amply proved in certain by-elections and other political indications before both our wars. Our problem, and, indeed, every democracy's problem, is to see now whether we can face up to this threat without being seduced from our purpose by the political cries of a lack of necessity. It is, perhaps, the most testing strain of all to maintain a sustained effort and these burdens for a number of years.
I do, with great sincerity, hope that both sides of the House will continue in the frame of mind in which they have been tonight. To sustain that burden, to drive through that particular task, is, I know, difficult, but I am convinced that it is the price of peace.

NATIONAL PARKS

9.58 p.m.

Dr. Barnett Stross: My purpose tonight is to bring before the House certain problems very much in the public eye, and which are associated with our National Parks, in part, but also with the question of public rights of way. I hope to speak very briefly for other hon. Members hope to catch your eye, Sir. The problems I wish to present are four in number: first, the problem of park administration; second, the problem of the nominees the Minister appoints under the joint boards; third, the question of the North Wales hydroelectricity schemes; and fourth and last, the question of footpaths.
On the question of park administration I myself shall say very little, because I see that we have here tonight by hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale (Mr. Anthony Greenwood). If he can catch your eye, Sir, he will be able to say something on this matter, for, if I remember rightly, he served on the Standing Committee and put down an Amendment on this very point. I would only say that my recollection of what occurred on the Standing Committee leaves me to believe that it was in the mind of the Minister and the Standing Committee that each Park should have its own planning officers and necessary staff.

It being Ten o'Clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn"—[Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith.]

Dr. Stross: On 27th November, a few days ago, I put a Question to the Minister, and he said that the joint boards, like other local authorities, should decide their own staff requirements. I would urge the Parliamentary Secretary and his right hon. Friend always to bear in mind that these are national parks. They were never intended to be local parks, and, therefore, the analogy is not good or true. I want to consider the danger which we face of divided loyalties if a planning officer is in part employed by the joint board and in part by one of the constituent local authorities. This is not a new problem; I know that the Department has had it before it again and again, but we hope

that tonight we may hear something reassuring, because we are anxious to feel that planning will be done in an independent fashion.
Perhaps I may be allowed to diverge for a moment to speak about the finances of the Parks. Is the Parliamentary Secretary satisfied with the arrangements made for the first of the Parks that was delineated in the Lake District? There the administrative expense is limited to £7,500, to be borne by the constituent local authorities in different proportions. That has not happened in Derbyshire and elsewhere, and we ask whether the Parliamentary Secretary, or his right hon. Friend believe that this amount is enough.
Does he not agree with me—and I speak as an old hand at local authority work, both as a councillor and still as an alderman, that if members who represent county councils have to go back, on instructions, to their constituent authorities and ask for more money they will hesitate before they agree to go, and they are not likely to press their case very strongly. At least, there may be a temptation in that direction.
My second point is on the question of the Minister's nominees on the joint board. That is another point, but I think that it should be raised. The Minister, we understand, nominates members to the Commission. Fears have been expressed that there may be such divergencies of local or even national opinion for the Welsh Parks involve national opinion, that the board may sometimes be formed without representation of the users of the parks—the ramblers, hikers, mountaineers, rock climbers, cyclists and others. What we are asking tonight is that in each and every case the Minister will see to it that in every park the users of the park are fully represented.
My third point concerns the North Wales hydro-electricity schemes. I speak tentatively on this matter, because I do not want to rush in where angels fear to tread. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether he can say anything as to what he and his right hon. Friend have in mind. He must be aware that there is a considerable body of opinion which believes that if the full schemes, as we hear them mooted by the British Electricity Association, are carried out, then Snowdonia can only be a pretence of a Park.
We on both sides of the House, for this is not a political matter in any sense at all, know that there are other things to consider than joy, amenity and beauty when we are considering our national destiny or our social environment. I have to urge on the Parliamentary Secretary that he and his right hon. Friend should be acutely aware of the interests that are concerned and if it is possible they should keep an anxious eye on all developments of this kind, particularly in Snowdonia.
If one speaks of beauty and amenity there is one thing where one need not be tentative at all, and that is in respect of the use of overhead electricity lines in the National Parks. Here we are of one mind in this House, for we believe that where the Parks are most used and where they are most beautiful these lines ought to be underground. The cost, it is stated, would be very high. I am told that for 2,000 miles of underground wiring the extra cost would be about £4 million. That figure is on the high side, I am informed. It could not be spent in one year, but over 20 years. It therefore means an expenditure of some £200,000 a year.
If this charge were borne nationally, as we think it should be, and added to the charge for electricity nationally, it would mean an increase on the users of electricity in this country of one-thousandth part of a penny per unit. That, I submit, is not a large increase. But if the Parliamentary Secretary and his right hon. Friend feel that they cannot persuade the D.E.A. to accept that charge there is the National Land Fund, and we should hope that an approach would be made to get the money from there.
My last point is about footpaths. In Section 56 of the Act a farmer is required to give seven days' notice to the highway authority before ploughing a footpath, and he is required to restore as soon as possible the surface of the footpath after ploughing up. The Parliamentary Secretary knows as much about this as any of us as he is addicted to walking in the countryside. From his own observations he will know what is happening.
Footpaths are being lost. They are being ploughed up and they are not being replaced. Highway authorities are taking

no action, and in some coastal areas, as my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Hayman) can testify, farmers are ploughing up right to the edge of the cliff, so that people cannot get round and access is barred. It is very important that these things should be watched most carefully.
With reference to the repair of footpaths, may I remind the House that Section 47 makes it clear that footpaths are repairable by the highway authority. We know that several county councils have refused to repair footpaths until a survey is completed and a right of way established. If the Act is right they are wrong, because where a highway authority knows that a path is a public one it should at once assume a responsibility for its maintenance without waiting for the completion of the survey procedure. I am certain that that is correct.
I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will make a note of the points I have mentioned. I would draw his attention to the fact that the Gloucester County Council have refused flatly to restore a footbridge over the River Avon. We know that an aggrieved person may take action against the defaulting highway authority, but that is a costly business and it is understandable that people are not in the habit of doing so.
We ask tonight whether the Parliamentary Secretary and his right hon. Friend will arrange for the Home Secretary to take a test case in the name of the Attorney-General against one of the offending highway authorities. If he will do this, it seems to us that the position will be clarified and everybody will benefit. I hope that he will do his best to give a satisfactory answer now, and so save us from having to pursue him with Parliamentary Questions on points of the kind.

10.11 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: I am very glad to have caught your eye, Mr. Speaker, because I should like to elaborate on one point which my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) made in his very admirable speech, and that is the point relating to the administration of the National Parks. I do so because many people in the country are disturbed about the arrangements which have been made in the area of the Peak District


National Park and I believe also in the case of the Lake District National Park, where the planning officers of one of the local authorities involved has been appointed as planning officer for the National Parks.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be able to clarify the position tonight, because we hoped that in the discussions on the Standing Committee which considered the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Bill this point had been met by assurances from Lord Silkin, who was at that time the Minister of Town and Country Planning. On 5th May, 1949, on Standing Committee A, some of my hon. Friends and I had put down an Amendment, which I moved and which was designed as exploratory to find out the Ministry's intention in this respect. I began by saying that I expected that it would be possible to elicit assurances from the Minister
that each and every joint planning board should employ its own planning officer
Later, in my quite short speech, I asked that the arrangements which were made would be
subject … to discussions with the National Parks Commission
before they were made.
In his reply, the Minister used these words:
I can certainly give my hon. Friend, in the most unqualified terms, the first assurance for which he asks.
On reading back the discussion on that occasion I think there is no doubt that the assurance to which he was referring was the one in which I had asked that each and every joint planning board should employ its own planning officer. When, later, he said that he was unable to give the second assurance, I believe he referred to my request that the arrangements should be subject to discussions with the National Parks Commission before they were made.
In the course of my remarks on that occasion I explained why it was that we wanted to have this assurance. Perhaps I might quote the words which I used. I said:
We want to avoid a situation where, instead of having a planning officer of its own, a joint board may be prepared to make do with a planning officer of one of the local authorities constituting part of that board. We feel that if that were done such a planning officer would be fulfilling two posts at once,

which would militate against the unity conception of the national Parks."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 5th May, 1949; c. 589 and 590.]
That is exactly the question which has developed with Peak District National Park and, I understand with the Lake District National Park as well.
My hon. Friend has explained very clearly indeed that we believe that that position is unsatisfactory. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to tell us tonight that he deprecates the practice just as much as we do, and that he will use the powers which he has under the First Schedule of the Town and Country Planning Act to ensure that National Park committees comply with the assurance which we understood Lord Silkin to give two years ago.

10.15 p.m.

Mr. E. H. Keeling: I was a member of the Standing Committee on the National Parks Bill, and I can confirm what has been said by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross), and the hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Anthony Greenwood) regarding a separate planning officer of the parks authority.
There is not the slightest doubt that Lord Silkin, who was then the Minister, gave the undertaking, and I am sure that he himself knew that he was giving this undertaking, for it was because he gave it that an Amendment to the same effect was withdrawn. It is clear that the planning officer of the Peak District or any other park will have a divided allegiance if the undertaking is not carried out; he will have an allegiance partly to the park authority and partly to the local authority by whom he is also employed.
My hon. Friend is entitled, if he so desires, to reverse the promise which was given by Lord Silkin. If he does intend to reverse that promise, I hope he will say so in terms and will not try to make out that the promise was never given. It was given.

10.16 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Ernest Marples): I am sure the House and the country will be grateful to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross), for raising


this most important issue on the Adjournment, and to his hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale (Mr. Anthony Greenwood) and my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Keeling) for supporting him. All three are ardent and enthusiastic supporters of what I call the "ginger group for the amenities of the country" They pursue that task with great perseverance.
I commend that perseverance for the reason that, of all the people in this House, I am the person who now uses the National Parks most. I have used them in the past more than any other hon. Member, and I propose to use them more than any other hon. Member in the future.
When I was very young I used to walk in Derbyshire along the Pennine way from Edale and over Kinder Scout. I used to sleep on top of Kinder Scout in a sleeping sack, and I used to know every grough on Kinder Scout. I have probably forgotten many of them since my Parliamentary duties became such a heavy burden on me.
When I grew up a little I used to go to the Lake District and to North Wales and climb on the rocks. I should like to invite the three hon. Gentlemen who have spoken to accompany me to a National Park on one occasion so that we can do a rock climb together. If I skilfully manipulate the rope at a right and convenient time it may be that we can increase the majority of the Government by at least two.
I assure hon. Members that they have established an identity of interests as far as I am concerned. In spirit, I am more than willing to do what I can to see that there is a National Park. I am still a member of the Climbers Club and I climb on the Idwal Slabs, which will be threatened if a bad hydro-electric scheme is established there. I recall a walk which my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham took with me one summer's day last year. With all respect to him, he wilted in the last mile of an 11 mile walk.

Mr. Keeling: No.

Mr. Marples: The spirit was willing but the flesh was a little weak.
To come to the points raised by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central,

I cannot really pursue the controversy between the two hon. Gentlemen opposite and Lord Silkin, who is now in another place. The controversy has gone on for a long time, and I am not sure that it is worth while pursuing it on this occasion. After Lord Silkin had the controversy with the hon. Members for Rossendale and Stoke-on-Trent, Central, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton) made a decision, and established a precedent, that the joint boards, like the local authorities, should decide as they thought fit whether an independent planning officer should be appointed. The right hon. Gentleman having decided that, I think that it is fruitless to carry the discussion very much further.
I believe in this rule in life: If you want anything done well and effectively, you will not dictate to a person or even suggest to him—you will get him to suggest to you. Some of the hon. Members who have spoken tonight are married men, and they ought to know that that rule applies in marriage, in business and in politics. Therefore, I think it best that we do not dictate to the Planning Board but that, having given them a definition of duties, we allow them to carry out those duties in the proper way.
The joint boards can, if they wish, appoint a planning officer. We believe that the gentleman in Whitehall does not know best, and we think it is better that the boards, and not the authorities in Whitehall, should make the decision. The joint boards must decide two things: first, the weight and the volume of work they have to carry out; and second, how best to cope with it. If they think that they want a permanent planning officer, they must appoint one; if not, they ought not to appoint one.
The national interest is safeguarded, surely, by the one-third membership of the Board which is appointed by the Minister himself. My right hon. Friend will appoint one-third of the Board. This policy was initiated by the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland, and it is not for me to take part in a controversy between Members of the Socialist Party. Many controversies are now going on, I have enough on my hands, and I would hate to intervene in any controversy between hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite.

Dr. Stross: I point out to the Parliamentary Secretary that we on this side are quite eclectic about this. We know that there has been a change of Government, and we are looking to see whether we can have an improvement on this point, at least.

Mr. Marples: Hon. Members opposite will have an improvement on many points, mostly in the building of a large number of new houses. On this particular issue, however, I appeal to hon. Members opposite to give these joint boards, now that they have been established, a fair crack of the whip and a sporting chance to prove themselves. The joint boards should be free from carping criticism until they have had a few years to see how they go.
If they fail, I promise the House that, if I am here, I will use what influence I have as Parliamentary Secretary to see that remedial action is taken in the interests of the National Parks. I ask hon. Members to believe me in this, even if they are a little dubious or doubtful in other respects. It would be unfair and ungenerous if we did not give these joint boards a chance to prove their mettle. I ask hon. Members not to continue to criticise them month after month, but to give them a fair chance now that they have been given a definition of duties and a possibility of action.
Now, I come to the question of footpaths, which was raised by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent. Central. Last Sunday, I took a walk near Godalming, and I was astonished and enraged when I found that a footpath was closed by barbed wire. The action I took was to write to the Commons. Open Spaces and Footpaths Preservation Society, but although that is a worthy Society it lacks funds and is not always able to remove the impediments which are placed on the footpaths. I agree in principle that these footpaths should be open to the public, and not closed by any action whatever. Again, therefore, in spirit I am with the hon. Member and I shall try to do my best to help him.

Mr. Alfred Robens: Did the hon. Gentleman write to the Society in his official capacity or as a private individual?

Mr. Marples: As a private individual—I am much too cautious to write in

my official capacity. I have written in the past, when I was on the benches opposite, and I shall always write if I find a footpath closed.

Mr. Robens: When the hon. Member is on this side again.

Mr. Marples: I shall not be back there. It will be many years before I write from the Opposition benches; most of my time will be spent here because there is a lot of work to do, and a lot of work, which hon. Members opposite have done, to undo.
The question of footpaths was raised by the bon. Member who opened the debate. It is a difficult question. The present position as regards footpaths is not satisfactory in my view, but I think we shall have to wait until December, 1952, because Section 27 of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act, 1949, provides that the local authorities have to make draft maps of footpaths. That has to be completed by December. 1952. Then there is the regular procedure of objection and so on.
When those footpaths have been clearly defined will be the time to make sure that local authorities keep them in repair. The first thing I have found when I have asked a local authority whether such and such a line is a footpath or not, has been that they have disclaimed responsibility until December, 1952. I rather think that because of the legislation passed by the previous Government—correctly in my view—we must wait until December. 1952, before taking effective action.

Mr. Keeling: If there is no doubt at all that a footpath is a public footpath, why should we wait until the end of 1952?

Mr. Marples: I agree, but the difficulty at the moment is that local authorities normally are very cagey about this—

Mr. Keeling: No.

Mr. Marples: —and until 1952 they will say they do not recognise as a footpath—

Mr. Keeling: It is not so at all.

Mr. Marples: If my hon. Friend has any point in mind where a local authority has admitted there is a footpath, perhaps he will be good enough to send me details—

Mr. Keeling: I will do so.

Mr. Marples: —and we will have a look at that specific instance. But, broadly speaking—and I think it is only human nature for them to take this action—they are very careful before they admit that it is a footpath in view of the draft map they have by statute to prepare.
I come to the question of ploughing. I was so interested in this subject that I made a great deal of research into it. I find it is extraordinarily complicated and that landowners have the right to plough up footpaths as part of the conditions under which a park was dedicated. If they have no such right as a condition of dedication, now, under the Act, they can plough up paths in accordance with the rules of good husbandry, provided they give seven days notice to the highway authority and restore the path as soon as may be. If they fail to give notice or to restore the paths, they may be prosecuted and fined.
The difficulty there is that under the existing law only the highway authority can enforce those provisions and take legal action. They have been reminded of these duties by my right hon. Friend's predecessor in the Ministry, and if there are any complaints of footpaths being ploughed up illegally highway authorities should be requested to take action. In case of doubt, if they do not do so I

ask hon. Members to write to me and I will do my level best to see if we can get some sort of action taken.
The last point is the question of Snowdonia. I am in somewhat of a difficulty here because I shall be under pressure from many sources. This House will press me considerably, my club, the Climbers' Club will watch me very carefully and my hon. Friend the Minister for Welsh Affairs will never give me a moment's peace on this question.
The question of overhead wires was a specific point raised in the debate. The cost of laying wires underground is extremely high; I think it is higher than the estimate given by the hon. Member, and his estimate was only the capital cost of laying wires underground. He neglected to take the maintenance cost into account, and that is most important. In conclusion, to those who want the amenities preserved, I would say, remember what Arthur Balfour said, that the average person seldom realises the controversial value of understatement.

The Question having been proposed at Ten o'Clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned accordingly at Half-past Ten o'Clock.